public inbox for linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
To: Tero.Kristo@nokia.com
Cc: khilman@deeprootsystems.com, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] OMAP3: GPIO: Added dynamic control logic for pad wakeups
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2010 11:01:25 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100309190125.GA2900@atomide.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1F18D6510CF0474A8C9500565A7E41A224FCDB832F@NOK-EUMSG-02.mgdnok.nokia.com>

* Tero.Kristo@nokia.com <Tero.Kristo@nokia.com> [100309 00:20]:
> >
> >Changes in wakeup state should not be directly correlated to interrupt
> >enabled GPIOs.  Rather, this should only be done for GPIOs that are
> >explicitly wakeup enabled (via enable_irq_wake(), which in turn
> >calls gpio_wake_enable()).
> 
> This logic somehow escapes me... I would guess drivers should not care during dynamic idle whether the device is in off/ret/ina and interrupts should just work. This is done to make this happen. Also, I understood that gpio wakeup logic is needed for the suspend wakeup, which is quite different from dynamic idle wakeup.
> 
> However, if this is intended behavior for the kernel, then I will accept it. You are saying the code below should be moved into the gpio_wake_enable() / disable() calls?

I agree. I'd assume during the idle modes we want everything to
automatically wake the system up. Otherwise we again have non-standard
Linux behaviour that's mysterious to track down. The enable_irq_wake
should only be needed for suspend states.
 
> >This change isn't explained in the changelog and appears unrelated to
> >this patch.
> 
> The reason for this change is that we need the gpio->pad mapping early now to enable wakeups properly. Otherwise some components can enable gpio interrupts early in the boot cycle and they will miss their wakeup setting because the map does not exist yet. I think another way to do this would be to enable wakeups for all enabled interrupts during the omap3_gpio_pads_init().

Don't have the original patch, but it smells like you're trying
to do gpio to mux register mapping?

If so, your already have that available via omap_mux_get/set_gpio()
for 34xx in the new muxcode already in mainline. Those work even
if you don't have CONFIG_OMAP_MUX set.

And I still need to convert 24xx to the new mux code so we can
get rid of the old omap1 style code..

Regards,

Tony

  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-03-09 19:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-10-16 12:23 [PATCH] OMAP3: GPIO: Added dynamic control logic for pad wakeups Tero Kristo
2010-03-08 17:06 ` Kevin Hilman
2010-03-09  8:24   ` Tero.Kristo
2010-03-09 18:57     ` Kevin Hilman
2010-03-09 19:01     ` Tony Lindgren [this message]
2010-03-09 19:27       ` Kevin Hilman
2010-03-09 20:01         ` Tony Lindgren

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=20100309190125.GA2900@atomide.com \
    --to=tony@atomide.com \
    --cc=Tero.Kristo@nokia.com \
    --cc=khilman@deeprootsystems.com \
    --cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox