From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ravi Chandra Sadineni Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] i8042: Increment wakeup_count for the respective port. Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 12:06:53 -0700 Message-ID: References: <20180601180053.120202-1-ravisadineni@chromium.org> <20180602010708.152025-1-ravisadineni@chromium.org> <20180604215339.GG164893@dtor-ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , Ravi Chandra Sadineni , chenhong3@huawei.com, Dmitry Torokhov , Todd Broch , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-input@vger.kernel.org, Rajat Jain , Benson Leung List-Id: linux-input@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 2:14 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:53 PM, Dmitry Torokhov > wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 06:07:08PM -0700, Ravi Chandra Sadineni wrote: >>> Call pm_wakeup_event on every irq. This should help us in identifying if >>> keyboard was a potential wake reason for the last resume. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Ravi Chandra Sadineni >>> --- >>> V2: Increment the wakeup count only when there is a irq and not when the >>> method is called internally. >>> >>> drivers/input/serio/i8042.c | 3 +++ >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/input/serio/i8042.c b/drivers/input/serio/i8042.c >>> index 824f4c1c1f310..2bd6f2633e29a 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/input/serio/i8042.c >>> +++ b/drivers/input/serio/i8042.c >>> @@ -573,6 +573,9 @@ static irqreturn_t i8042_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id) >>> port = &i8042_ports[port_no]; >>> serio = port->exists ? port->serio : NULL; >>> >>> + if (irq && serio && device_may_wakeup(&serio->dev)) >>> + pm_wakeup_event(&serio->dev, 0); >> >> The constant checks for device_may_wakeup() before calling >> pm_wakeup_event()needed to avoid warnings in wakeup_source_activate() >> (?) are annoying. > > I'm not following you here. > > pm_wakeup_event() -> > pm_wakeup_dev_event() -> > pm_wakeup_ws_event(dev->power.wakeup, ...) > Checks if the first arg is NULL and returns quietly if so. > > I don't see why you need the device_may_wakeup() check. Just realized that device_may_wakeup check is not needed. Removed the check in V3. Thanks. > >> Rafael, can we move the check into pm_wakeup_dev_event()? > > That would be redundant, wouldn't it? > >> I am also confused when pm_wakeup_event() vs pm_wakeup_hard_event() vs >> pm_wakeup_dev_event() should be used, if any. Is there any guidance? > > First off, the "hard" variant is for when you want to abort suspends > in progress or wake up from suspend to idle regardless of whether or > not wakeup source tracking is enabled. > > Second, use pm_wakeup_dev_event() if the decision on "hard" vs "soft" > needs to be made at run time. > > Thanks, > Rafael