On 06/28/2012 06:10 PM, Franky Lin wrote:
> On 06/28/2012 03:59 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>
>> On 06/28/2012 05:53 PM, Franky Lin wrote:
>>> I found one interesting thing. When I added the print info to see when
>>> runtime_suspend/resume get called, it seems like the suspend/resume is
>>> unbalance during boot. Resume got called more than suspend. So I hack
>>> the code to make sure suspend and resume are called in pair. A resume
>>> without suspend will do nothing and return immediately. This also makes
>>> the hang vanish.
>>
>> I am not 100% sure I follow. On boot I would expect to see a
>> resume/suspend due to the probe on the irq bank and then I would expect
>> to see another resume from the acquisition of the gpio, however, I would
>> not expect a suspend until the gpio is freed, which I don't believe you
>> are doing.
>>
>> Can you share your hack? Just paste the diff? This may help me
>> understand more.
>>
>
> OK.
> This is what I saw in the log:
> [ 0.171844] dummy:
> [ 0.172912] NET: Registered protocol family 16
> [ 0.173431] GPMC revision 6.0
> [ 0.173492] gpmc: irq-52 could not claim: err -22
> [ 0.177551] ??????omap_gpio_runtime_resume
> [ 0.178619] OMAP GPIO hardware version 0.1
> [ 0.178649] !!!!!omap_gpio_runtime_suspend
> [ 0.178771] ??????omap_gpio_runtime_resume
> [ 0.179351] !!!!!omap_gpio_runtime_suspend
> [ 0.179504] ??????omap_gpio_runtime_resume
> [ 0.180023] !!!!!omap_gpio_runtime_suspend
> [ 0.180145] ??????omap_gpio_runtime_resume
> [ 0.180694] !!!!!omap_gpio_runtime_suspend
> [ 0.180847] ??????omap_gpio_runtime_resume
> [ 0.181365] !!!!!omap_gpio_runtime_suspend
> [ 0.181518] ??????omap_gpio_runtime_resume
> [ 0.182037] !!!!!omap_gpio_runtime_suspend
> [ 0.185089] omap_mux_init: Add partition: #1: core, flags: 2
> [ 0.186462] omap_mux_init: Add partition: #2: wkup, flags: 2
> [ 0.186584] error setting wl12xx data: -38
> [ 0.189788] _omap_mux_get_by_name: Could not find signal
> uart1_rx.uart1_rx
> [ 0.189788] _omap_mux_get_by_name: Could not find signal
> uart1_rx.uart1_rx
> [ 0.239501] ??????omap_gpio_runtime_resume
> [ 0.239532] ??????omap_gpio_runtime_resume
> [ 0.241058] usbhs_omap: alias fck already exists
> [ 0.244781] ??????omap_gpio_runtime_resume
I am wondering if this could be the bug ... on start-up I see that we do
a context restore on bank1 during the probe which is before we have done
the first suspend! In other words, we could restore a bad/uninitialised
context for bank1. In the case of bank1, the loss count starts at 1 and
not 0 and so we falsely think we need to perform a restore :-(
[ 0.176269] omap_gpio_runtime_resume: bank @ 0xfc310000
[ 0.177276] omap_gpio_runtime_resume: count 0, now 1
[ 0.177276] gpiochip_add: registered GPIOs 0 to 31 on device: gpio
[ 0.177642] omap_gpio_runtime_suspend: bank @ 0xfc310000
Can you try ...
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
index c4ed172..9623408 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
@@ -1086,6 +1086,9 @@ static int __devinit omap_gpio_probe(struct
platform_device *pdev)
#ifdef CONFIG_OF_GPIO
bank->chip.of_node = of_node_get(node);
#endif
+ if (bank->get_context_loss_count)
+ bank->context_loss_count =
+ bank->get_context_loss_count(bank->dev);
bank->irq_base = irq_alloc_descs(-1, 0, bank->width, 0);
if (bank->irq_base < 0) {
Thanks
Jon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
