From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grygorii Strashko Subject: Re: Lack of suspend/resume/shutdown ordering between GPIO providers and consumers Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 13:06:42 -0500 Message-ID: <03711276-d854-7f87-f2e2-c64716b09dbe@ti.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Florian Fainelli , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com, enric.balletbo@collabora.com, josephl@nvidia.com, opendmb@gmail.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 04/24/2018 05:58 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote: > Hi Linus, Rafael, all > > Our GPIO controller driver: gpio-brcmstb.c has a shutdown callback which > gets invoked when the system is brought into poweroff aka S5. So far so > good, except that we also wish to use gpio_keys.c as a possible wake-up > source, so we may have a number of GPIO pins declared as gpio-keys that > allow the system to wake-up from deep slumber. > > Recently we noticed that we could easily get into a state where > gpio-brcmstb.c::brcmstb_gpio_shutdown() gets called first, and then > gpio_keys.c::gpio_keys_suspend() gets called later, which is too late to > have the enable_irq_wake() call do anything sensible since we have > suspend its parent interrupt controller before. This is completely > expected unfortunately because these two drivers are both platform > device instances with no connection to one another except via Device > Tree and the use of the GPIOLIB APIs. You can take a look at device_link_add() and Co. But it's little bit unclear what exactly you have issue with: - shutdown - suspend above are different (at least as it was before) and gpio-brcmstb.c brcmstb_gpio_shutdown() should not be called as part of suspend !? may be you mean brcmstb_gpio_suspend? -- regards, -grygorii