From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,T_DKIM_INVALID, USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18034C3279B for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:38:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C604020878 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:38:11 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key) header.d=codeaurora.org header.i=@codeaurora.org header.b="bftqpUl/"; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key) header.d=codeaurora.org header.i=@codeaurora.org header.b="azWmmejp" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C604020878 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732510AbeGJUix (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2018 16:38:53 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:35492 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1732333AbeGJUiw (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2018 16:38:52 -0400 Received: by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EC4A660B18; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:38:07 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=codeaurora.org; s=default; t=1531255088; bh=hyNqHxTM2ATUYNNPkMogwMP0q3tsA8JcQrb/mmI0Ots=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=bftqpUl/zzu8sa5eRPmh77HTMdIHSXU8+rkgfUSBfAG7aRUHcWLGgM7S1tnN/wFaF OKh9jpKo7HM5T3Ch76tH7d0JYANy4fFwLAJR7tibPJV5TkpYxNwACX20KOxl5F6c9e p5sfIpqXzWqVUIQ44Qern15MKZCIZPRJMJboHbRU= Received: from localhost (i-global254.qualcomm.com [199.106.103.254]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ilina@smtp.codeaurora.org) by smtp.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2A59560C8E; Tue, 10 Jul 2018 20:38:06 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=codeaurora.org; s=default; t=1531255086; bh=hyNqHxTM2ATUYNNPkMogwMP0q3tsA8JcQrb/mmI0Ots=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=azWmmejpLFizt+ReAMw77L25xH9/C+HHPsFPZ4LIBPUq+jm9K+KSTw3Qc2WJOzysT o3PeaLeUNHjWIe5wATQ48i1mM7mj6jCGBBvbJTyJ9HziQKMjOjuLiixl1zX49X+RYZ /ntmAxRqE+302cJUTFMIpAdZ7/+gJXDXIIk3lm9s= DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 2A59560C8E Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=ilina@codeaurora.org Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2018 14:38:05 -0600 From: Lina Iyer To: Evan Green Cc: Bjorn Andersson , Linus Walleij , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, swboyd@chromium.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: msm: Pass along set_wake failures Message-ID: <20180710203805.GA14825@codeaurora.org> References: <20180619234349.166190-1-evgreen@chromium.org> <20180709173022.GH2050@tuxbook-pro> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 10 2018 at 12:53 -0600, Evan Green wrote: >On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 10:27 AM Bjorn Andersson > wrote: >> >> Sorry for not getting back to you in a timely manner Evan, I wanted to >> read up more on the details of how this is supposed to work. I still >> haven't done so, but here's my concern: >> >> When we power down the SoC we're no longer powering either the TLMM or >> the GIC, so the MPM or PDC is used to waking the system on some set of >> triggers. As such set_wake on an individual pin or irq should be routed >> to the MPM/PDC driver, which (in the PDC case) is implemented using >> hierarchical irq domains. >> >> As such I think that we shouldn't toggle the wake property of the >> summary pin at all; i.e. the patch should remove that call rather than >> propagating what I believe is a constant failure. >> >> Regards, >> Bjorn > >Hi Bjorn, >That's okay, I always feel bad pinging. Thanks for the thoughtful >response. Stephen and I are starting to think about how wake >interrupts should work with regard to the PDC, and we're at a place >where we're a bit unsure of the path forward. > >Our understanding is the downstream kernel had an interrupt hierarchy >of GIC > PDC > TLMM & everybody else. In the downstream world PDC >acted transparently, forwarding most requests directly onto the GIC, >but quietly handling wake interrupts as well. With the upstream PDC >driver, the #interrupt-cells got changed to 2, and it seemed like >folks didn't like the idea that PDC was acting transparently. Correct >me if I'm wrong there. So now we're sort of unsure about how to wire >in PDC. If we make everybody an interrupt child of PDC, then we lose >the ability to specify the third GIC parameter, and we're stuck >expressing interrupts with respect to PDC pins, which is an awkward >mental translation. Its an unfortunate side effect of the design. Drivers will have to request the PDC pin for wakeup IRQs. >In this world, does TLMM need to do direct-connect >stuff to get wake-able GPIO interrupts working? It would kind of have >a foot in both worlds, with its summary interrupt as a GIC interrupt >but the wakeable ones as parented by PDC? > With GPIOs, I am trying to hack the TLMM driver to request a PDC pin, when the IRQ associated with the GPIO is requested as a wakeup interrupt. In that case, the TLMM driver would do the GPIO->PDC pin translation and request it. There is no hierarchy between TLMM and PDC. Will try a RFC patch in a week or two. -- Lina >So anyway, with regard to this patch, I'm happy to create a second >spin that simply removes this function, but for me at least it brought >up some larger questions we've been wrestling with. >-Evan >-- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in >the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html