From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Justin Chen <justinpopo6@gmail.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@gmail.com>,
devicetree@vger.kernel.org (open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND
FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS),
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com (open list:BROADCOM BMIPS
MIPS ARCHITECTURE),
linux-mips@vger.kernel.org (open list:BROADCOM BMIPS MIPS
ARCHITECTURE)
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] irqchip/irq-bcm7038-l1: Add PM support
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 13:31:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190922133108.09211a17@why> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190913191542.9908-2-f.fainelli@gmail.com>
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:15:38 -0700
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Justin Chen <justinpopo6@gmail.com>
>
> The current l1 controller does not mask any interrupts when dropping
> into suspend. This mean we can receive unexpected wake up sources.
> Modified MIPS l1 controller to mask the all non-wake interrupts before
> dropping into suspend.
>
> Signed-off-by: Justin Chen <justinpopo6@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/irqchip/irq-bcm7038-l1.c | 98 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 98 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-bcm7038-l1.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-bcm7038-l1.c
> index fc75c61233aa..f5e4ff5251ab 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-bcm7038-l1.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-bcm7038-l1.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
> #include <linux/types.h>
> #include <linux/irqchip.h>
> #include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h>
> +#include <linux/syscore_ops.h>
>
> #define IRQS_PER_WORD 32
> #define REG_BYTES_PER_IRQ_WORD (sizeof(u32) * 4)
> @@ -39,6 +40,10 @@ struct bcm7038_l1_chip {
> unsigned int n_words;
> struct irq_domain *domain;
> struct bcm7038_l1_cpu *cpus[NR_CPUS];
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> + struct list_head list;
> + u32 wake_mask[MAX_WORDS];
> +#endif
> u8 affinity[MAX_WORDS * IRQS_PER_WORD];
> };
>
> @@ -47,6 +52,17 @@ struct bcm7038_l1_cpu {
> u32 mask_cache[0];
> };
>
> +/*
> + * We keep a list of bcm7038_l1_chip used for suspend/resume. This hack is
> + * used because the struct chip_type suspend/resume hooks are not called
> + * unless chip_type is hooked onto a generic_chip. Since this driver does
> + * not use generic_chip, we need to manually hook our resume/suspend to
> + * syscore_ops.
> + */
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> +static LIST_HEAD(bcm7038_l1_intcs_list);
> +#endif
nit: this could be moved down to be close to the rest of the PM_SLEEP
ifdefery.
> +
> /*
> * STATUS/MASK_STATUS/MASK_SET/MASK_CLEAR are packed one right after another:
> *
> @@ -287,6 +303,77 @@ static int __init bcm7038_l1_init_one(struct device_node *dn,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> +static int bcm7038_l1_suspend(void)
> +{
> + struct bcm7038_l1_chip *intc;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + int boot_cpu, word;
> +
> + /* Wakeup interrupt should only come from the boot cpu */
> + boot_cpu = cpu_logical_map(smp_processor_id());
What guarantees that you're actually running on the boot CPU at this
point? If that's actually the case, why isn't cpu_logical_map(0) enough?
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(intc, &bcm7038_l1_intcs_list, list) {
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&intc->lock, flags);
And if this can only run on a single CPU, what's the purpose of this
lock?
> + for (word = 0; word < intc->n_words; word++) {
> + l1_writel(~intc->wake_mask[word],
> + intc->cpus[boot_cpu]->map_base +
> + reg_mask_set(intc, word));
> + l1_writel(intc->wake_mask[word],
> + intc->cpus[boot_cpu]->map_base +
> + reg_mask_clr(intc, word));
nit: Please don't split the write address across two lines, it makes it
harder to read.
> + }
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&intc->lock, flags);
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void bcm7038_l1_resume(void)
> +{
> + struct bcm7038_l1_chip *intc;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + int boot_cpu, word;
> +
> + boot_cpu = cpu_logical_map(smp_processor_id());
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(intc, &bcm7038_l1_intcs_list, list) {
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&intc->lock, flags);
> + for (word = 0; word < intc->n_words; word++) {
> + l1_writel(intc->cpus[boot_cpu]->mask_cache[word],
> + intc->cpus[boot_cpu]->map_base +
> + reg_mask_set(intc, word));
> + l1_writel(~intc->cpus[boot_cpu]->mask_cache[word],
> + intc->cpus[boot_cpu]->map_base +
> + reg_mask_clr(intc, word));
> + }
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&intc->lock, flags);
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static struct syscore_ops bcm7038_l1_syscore_ops = {
> + .suspend = bcm7038_l1_suspend,
> + .resume = bcm7038_l1_resume,
> +};
> +
> +static int bcm7038_l1_set_wake(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int on)
> +{
> + struct bcm7038_l1_chip *intc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
> + unsigned long flags;
> + u32 word = d->hwirq / IRQS_PER_WORD;
> + u32 mask = BIT(d->hwirq % IRQS_PER_WORD);
> +
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&intc->lock, flags);
> + if (on)
> + intc->wake_mask[word] |= mask;
> + else
> + intc->wake_mask[word] &= ~mask;
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&intc->lock, flags);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> static struct irq_chip bcm7038_l1_irq_chip = {
> .name = "bcm7038-l1",
> .irq_mask = bcm7038_l1_mask,
> @@ -295,6 +382,9 @@ static struct irq_chip bcm7038_l1_irq_chip = {
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> .irq_cpu_offline = bcm7038_l1_cpu_offline,
> #endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> + .irq_set_wake = bcm7038_l1_set_wake,
> +#endif
> };
>
> static int bcm7038_l1_map(struct irq_domain *d, unsigned int virq,
> @@ -340,6 +430,14 @@ int __init bcm7038_l1_of_init(struct device_node *dn,
> goto out_unmap;
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> + /* Add bcm7038_l1_chip into a list */
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&intc->list);
> + list_add_tail(&intc->list, &bcm7038_l1_intcs_list);
No locking to manipulate this list? Is that safe?
> +
> + register_syscore_ops(&bcm7038_l1_syscore_ops);
Do you really register the syscore_ops for each and every L1 irqchip?
> +#endif
> +
> pr_info("registered BCM7038 L1 intc (%pOF, IRQs: %d)\n",
> dn, IRQS_PER_WORD * intc->n_words);
>
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Justin Chen <justinpopo6@gmail.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@gmail.com>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
"open list:BROADCOM BMIPS MIPS ARCHITECTURE"
<bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com>,
"open list:BROADCOM BMIPS MIPS ARCHITECTURE"
<linux-mips@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] irqchip/irq-bcm7038-l1: Add PM support
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 13:31:08 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190922133108.09211a17@why> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190913191542.9908-2-f.fainelli@gmail.com>
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 12:15:38 -0700
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Justin Chen <justinpopo6@gmail.com>
>
> The current l1 controller does not mask any interrupts when dropping
> into suspend. This mean we can receive unexpected wake up sources.
> Modified MIPS l1 controller to mask the all non-wake interrupts before
> dropping into suspend.
>
> Signed-off-by: Justin Chen <justinpopo6@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/irqchip/irq-bcm7038-l1.c | 98 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 98 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-bcm7038-l1.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-bcm7038-l1.c
> index fc75c61233aa..f5e4ff5251ab 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-bcm7038-l1.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-bcm7038-l1.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
> #include <linux/types.h>
> #include <linux/irqchip.h>
> #include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h>
> +#include <linux/syscore_ops.h>
>
> #define IRQS_PER_WORD 32
> #define REG_BYTES_PER_IRQ_WORD (sizeof(u32) * 4)
> @@ -39,6 +40,10 @@ struct bcm7038_l1_chip {
> unsigned int n_words;
> struct irq_domain *domain;
> struct bcm7038_l1_cpu *cpus[NR_CPUS];
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> + struct list_head list;
> + u32 wake_mask[MAX_WORDS];
> +#endif
> u8 affinity[MAX_WORDS * IRQS_PER_WORD];
> };
>
> @@ -47,6 +52,17 @@ struct bcm7038_l1_cpu {
> u32 mask_cache[0];
> };
>
> +/*
> + * We keep a list of bcm7038_l1_chip used for suspend/resume. This hack is
> + * used because the struct chip_type suspend/resume hooks are not called
> + * unless chip_type is hooked onto a generic_chip. Since this driver does
> + * not use generic_chip, we need to manually hook our resume/suspend to
> + * syscore_ops.
> + */
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> +static LIST_HEAD(bcm7038_l1_intcs_list);
> +#endif
nit: this could be moved down to be close to the rest of the PM_SLEEP
ifdefery.
> +
> /*
> * STATUS/MASK_STATUS/MASK_SET/MASK_CLEAR are packed one right after another:
> *
> @@ -287,6 +303,77 @@ static int __init bcm7038_l1_init_one(struct device_node *dn,
> return 0;
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> +static int bcm7038_l1_suspend(void)
> +{
> + struct bcm7038_l1_chip *intc;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + int boot_cpu, word;
> +
> + /* Wakeup interrupt should only come from the boot cpu */
> + boot_cpu = cpu_logical_map(smp_processor_id());
What guarantees that you're actually running on the boot CPU at this
point? If that's actually the case, why isn't cpu_logical_map(0) enough?
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(intc, &bcm7038_l1_intcs_list, list) {
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&intc->lock, flags);
And if this can only run on a single CPU, what's the purpose of this
lock?
> + for (word = 0; word < intc->n_words; word++) {
> + l1_writel(~intc->wake_mask[word],
> + intc->cpus[boot_cpu]->map_base +
> + reg_mask_set(intc, word));
> + l1_writel(intc->wake_mask[word],
> + intc->cpus[boot_cpu]->map_base +
> + reg_mask_clr(intc, word));
nit: Please don't split the write address across two lines, it makes it
harder to read.
> + }
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&intc->lock, flags);
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void bcm7038_l1_resume(void)
> +{
> + struct bcm7038_l1_chip *intc;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + int boot_cpu, word;
> +
> + boot_cpu = cpu_logical_map(smp_processor_id());
> +
> + list_for_each_entry(intc, &bcm7038_l1_intcs_list, list) {
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&intc->lock, flags);
> + for (word = 0; word < intc->n_words; word++) {
> + l1_writel(intc->cpus[boot_cpu]->mask_cache[word],
> + intc->cpus[boot_cpu]->map_base +
> + reg_mask_set(intc, word));
> + l1_writel(~intc->cpus[boot_cpu]->mask_cache[word],
> + intc->cpus[boot_cpu]->map_base +
> + reg_mask_clr(intc, word));
> + }
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&intc->lock, flags);
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static struct syscore_ops bcm7038_l1_syscore_ops = {
> + .suspend = bcm7038_l1_suspend,
> + .resume = bcm7038_l1_resume,
> +};
> +
> +static int bcm7038_l1_set_wake(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int on)
> +{
> + struct bcm7038_l1_chip *intc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
> + unsigned long flags;
> + u32 word = d->hwirq / IRQS_PER_WORD;
> + u32 mask = BIT(d->hwirq % IRQS_PER_WORD);
> +
> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&intc->lock, flags);
> + if (on)
> + intc->wake_mask[word] |= mask;
> + else
> + intc->wake_mask[word] &= ~mask;
> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&intc->lock, flags);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +#endif
> +
> static struct irq_chip bcm7038_l1_irq_chip = {
> .name = "bcm7038-l1",
> .irq_mask = bcm7038_l1_mask,
> @@ -295,6 +382,9 @@ static struct irq_chip bcm7038_l1_irq_chip = {
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> .irq_cpu_offline = bcm7038_l1_cpu_offline,
> #endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> + .irq_set_wake = bcm7038_l1_set_wake,
> +#endif
> };
>
> static int bcm7038_l1_map(struct irq_domain *d, unsigned int virq,
> @@ -340,6 +430,14 @@ int __init bcm7038_l1_of_init(struct device_node *dn,
> goto out_unmap;
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
> + /* Add bcm7038_l1_chip into a list */
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&intc->list);
> + list_add_tail(&intc->list, &bcm7038_l1_intcs_list);
No locking to manipulate this list? Is that safe?
> +
> + register_syscore_ops(&bcm7038_l1_syscore_ops);
Do you really register the syscore_ops for each and every L1 irqchip?
> +#endif
> +
> pr_info("registered BCM7038 L1 intc (%pOF, IRQs: %d)\n",
> dn, IRQS_PER_WORD * intc->n_words);
>
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-22 12:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-09-13 19:15 [PATCH v2 0/5] irqchip/irq-bcm7038-l1 updates Florian Fainelli
2019-09-13 19:15 ` Florian Fainelli
2019-09-13 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] irqchip/irq-bcm7038-l1: Add PM support Florian Fainelli
2019-09-13 19:15 ` Florian Fainelli
2019-09-22 12:31 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2019-09-22 12:31 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-09-22 18:50 ` Florian Fainelli
2019-09-13 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 2/5] dt-bindings: Document brcm,irq-can-wake for brcm,bcm7038-l1-intc.txt Florian Fainelli
2019-09-13 19:15 ` Florian Fainelli
2019-09-30 19:05 ` Rob Herring
2019-09-13 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 3/5] irqchip/irq-bcm7038-l1: Enable parent IRQ if necessary Florian Fainelli
2019-09-13 19:15 ` Florian Fainelli
2019-09-13 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 4/5] dt-bindings: Document brcm,int-fwd-mask property for bcm7038-l1-intc Florian Fainelli
2019-09-13 19:15 ` Florian Fainelli
2019-09-30 19:10 ` Rob Herring
2019-09-30 19:10 ` Rob Herring
2019-09-13 19:15 ` [PATCH v2 5/5] irqchip/irq-bcm7038-l1: Support brcm,int-fwd-mask Florian Fainelli
2019-09-13 19:15 ` Florian Fainelli
2019-09-22 12:38 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-09-22 12:38 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-09-22 19:08 ` Florian Fainelli
2019-09-23 8:52 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-09-23 14:39 ` Florian Fainelli
2019-09-23 14:57 ` Marc Zyngier
2019-09-23 15:08 ` Florian Fainelli
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190922133108.09211a17@why \
--to=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com \
--cc=cernekee@gmail.com \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=f.fainelli@gmail.com \
--cc=jason@lakedaemon.net \
--cc=justinpopo6@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.