[PATCH v4 04/12] gpio/omap: remove saved_wakeup field from struct gpio_bank

[rogerq@ti.com (Roger Quadros)]

On 07/09/2012 03:30 PM, DebBarma, Tarun Kanti wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com> wrote:
>> Tarun,
>>
>> On 07/09/2012 02:16 PM, DebBarma, Tarun Kanti wrote:
>>> Hi Roger,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Just bumped across this patch and have a query.
>>>>
>>>> On 03/16/2012 04:05 PM, Tarun Kanti DebBarma wrote:
>>>>> There is no more need to have saved_wakeup because bank->context.wake_en
>>>>> already holds that value. So getting rid of read/write operation associated
>>>>> with this field.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tarun Kanti DebBarma <tarun.kanti@ti.com>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
>>>>> Acked-by: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c |   12 +++---------
>>>>>  1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
>>>>> index 3a4f151..3b91ade 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c
>>>>> @@ -57,7 +57,6 @@ struct gpio_bank {
>>>>>       u16 irq;
>>>>>       int irq_base;
>>>>>       struct irq_domain *domain;
>>>>> -     u32 saved_wakeup;
>>>>>       u32 non_wakeup_gpios;
>>>>>       u32 enabled_non_wakeup_gpios;
>>>>>       struct gpio_regs context;
>>>>> @@ -777,7 +776,6 @@ static int omap_mpuio_suspend_noirq(struct device *dev)
>>>>>       unsigned long           flags;
>>>>>
>>>>>       spin_lock_irqsave(&bank->lock, flags);
>>>>> -     bank->saved_wakeup = __raw_readl(mask_reg);
>>>>>       __raw_writel(0xffff & ~bank->context.wake_en, mask_reg);
>>>>
>>>> OK, here you are overwriting the mask_reg with the wakeup bitmask
>>>> without saving the mask_reg's original content.
>>> This is based upon understanding that set_gpio_trigger() is the common
>>> function where update of wake_en register takes place. Unless, mask_reg
>>> in this case refers to something else, effectively we would be saving the
>>> same value to saved_wakeup what is already present in wake_en.
>>> I will verify this specific to this function.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>       spin_unlock_irqrestore(&bank->lock, flags);
>>>>>
>>>>> @@ -793,7 +791,7 @@ static int omap_mpuio_resume_noirq(struct device *dev)
>>>>>       unsigned long           flags;
>>>>>
>>>>>       spin_lock_irqsave(&bank->lock, flags);
>>>>> -     __raw_writel(bank->saved_wakeup, mask_reg);
>>>>> +     __raw_writel(bank->context.wake_en, mask_reg);
>>>>
>>>> Now you are restoring nothing but the same content that you stored
>>>> during suspend. This will cause the non-wakeup gpio interrupts to get
>>>> masked between a suspend/resume. So isn't this a bug?
>>> That's right, the same value is restored back which was last updated in
>>> set_gpio_trigger() that got stored in wake_en register. Let me know if
>>> I am missing your points here.
>>
>> If it is writing the same thing then isn't this write redundant?
> Not, really. During suspend if the register has lost the context
> we need to restore the value from wake_en.

Shouldn't that be taken care of by omap_gpio_restore_context() that too
only if the context was lost?

> --
> Tarun
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Proper solution would be to save the mask_reg context into another
>>>> register than context.wake_en during suspend.
>>> As I said, this would make sense if mask_reg is referring to different
>>> register than what is used in set_gpio_trigger(). I will have a look.
>>
>> OK thanks.
>>
>>>
>>> BTW, did you observe anything unusual during some testing?
>>

Did you get a chance to see if the two registers are same or different?

regards,
-roger