On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 11:01:57AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 02:15:02PM +0530, Sandeep Maheswaram wrote:
> > Keep the power domain on in order to retain controller status and
> > to support wakeup from devices.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sandeep Maheswaram <quic_c_sanm@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-qcom.c | 6 ++++++
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-qcom.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-qcom.c
> > index 9804a19..35087cf 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-qcom.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-qcom.c
> > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@
> > #include <linux/of_platform.h>
> > #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> > #include <linux/phy/phy.h>
> > +#include <linux/pm_domain.h>
> > #include <linux/usb/of.h>
> > #include <linux/reset.h>
> > #include <linux/iopoll.h>
> > @@ -724,6 +725,7 @@ static int dwc3_qcom_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > struct resource *res, *parent_res = NULL;
> > int ret, i;
> > bool ignore_pipe_clk;
> > + struct generic_pm_domain *genpd;
> >
> > qcom = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*qcom), GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!qcom)
> > @@ -732,6 +734,8 @@ static int dwc3_qcom_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > platform_set_drvdata(pdev, qcom);
> > qcom->dev = &pdev->dev;
> >
> > + genpd = pd_to_genpd(qcom->dev->pm_domain);
> > +
> > if (has_acpi_companion(dev)) {
> > qcom->acpi_pdata = acpi_device_get_match_data(dev);
> > if (!qcom->acpi_pdata) {
> > @@ -839,6 +843,8 @@ static int dwc3_qcom_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > if (ret)
> > goto interconnect_exit;
> >
> > + genpd->flags |= GENPD_FLAG_ALWAYS_ON;
>
> Not sure it really matters, but could this be done conditionally based
> on device_can_wakeup() of the dwc3 core device?
+1. Makes sense to me.
>
> > +
> > device_init_wakeup(&pdev->dev, 1);
>
> Now that the dwc3 core looks at the wakeup-source property it seems
> this driver should enable wakeup only when it is enabled for the
> core.
>
> Actually I wonder if it would make sense to leave wakeup for dwc3-qcom
> 'officially' disabled, and just make all wakeup related decisions
> based on the wakeup configuration of the dwc3 core (as
> dwc3_qcom_en/disable_interrupts() already do). The separate wakeup
> policies for dwc3 core and dwc3-qcom are confusing and don't seem to
> add any value.
This suggestion makes sense. Do we foresee any issues by not marking
this parent device not wakeup capable? I don't see any.
Thanks,
Pavan
