Re: [PATCH v4] pinctrl: mediatek: Implement wake handler and suspend resume

[Sudeep Holla]

On 15/09/15 03:52, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:16 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote:

[...]

> > This is wrong assumption in the driver. enable_irq_wake doesn't
> > implicitly enable the IRQ. So the disable_irq should be moved to else.
> > And the resume patch also needs to be fixed accordingly, otherwise you
> > may get unbalanced irq. But this should not be the reason for fixing the
> > pinctrl suspend/resume.
>
> Elan driver does not want to enable servicing IRQs, it just wants to
> configure them as wakeup sources. Hence the current elan_suspend() is
> fine. When system wakes up and the device is resumed and the driver is
> ready to service interrupts it will enable IRQ again.

Fair enough. But I am struggling to understand how this fits into
existing IRQ infrastructure. Few controllers that don't have wakeup
source configuration facility can set IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE and just
leave the interrupts enabled in suspend path to wake it up. So IMO,
the above strategy might not work on such controllers.

> IOW enable_irq_wake() and enable_irq() are 2 completely different
> calls and it is perfectly fine to disable IRQ and then ebale it as a
> wakeup source.

I agree that they are entirely different APIs, I am not sure if we can
support different interrupt controller with such strategy.

Since the irq/pm core handle disabling device IRQs and section "System
Wakeup Interrupts, enable_irq_wake() and disable_irq_wake()" in
Documentation/power/suspend-and-interrupts.txt gives me different
understanding, we can check with tglx on how to handle this.

Regards,
Sudeep
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/