Re: Re: [PATCH 1/1] extcon: gpio: Add power resume support

Re: Re: [PATCH 1/1] extcon: gpio: Add power resume support

[MyungJoo Ham]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=euc-kr, Size: 3254 bytes --]

> On 12/23/2013 05:13 PM, Barry Song wrote:
> > 2013/12/23 Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>:
> >> On 12/23/2013 04:36 PM, Barry Song wrote:
> >>> 2013/12/23 Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>:
> >>>> On 12/23/2013 03:10 PM, Barry Song wrote:
> >>>>> 2013/12/23 Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>:
> >>>>>> On 12/20/2013 05:09 PM, rjying wrote:
> >>>>>>> From: Rongjun Ying <rongjun.ying@csr.com>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> After system resume, need send extcon uevent to userspace
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why did extcon send uevent after wakeup from suspend?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If extcon cable is attatched or detached on suspend state,
> >>>>>> Kernel can detect the interrupt about changed state of extcon.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> irq controller has lost power in suspend, so there is no pending interrupt.
> >>>>> and HW will not pend any interrupt when we hotplug cable during sleep.
> >>>>
> >>>> No, SoC in suspend state must maintain the minimum power under 1mA
> >>>> if completed the power-optimization on suspend state.
> >>>>
> >>>> If user insert USB cable to target, the external interrupt connected to
> >>>> USB port is happened. And kernel would be waked up from suspend state
> >>>> to operate proper interrupt handler of external interrupt.
> >>>
> >>> no. not every USB supports that. that depends on the power domain design of SoC.
> >>
> >> USB is only example for gpio control in suspend state.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Also,
> >>>> Input subsystem used gpio-keys driver for power button..
> >>>> If user press power button in suspend state, target would be waked up from suspend state.
> >>>> It is same case both extcon gpio and gpio-keys of input subsystem.
> >>>
> >>> no. it depends on the SoC design. many SoC only support 1 special key
> >>> which can work as ON-KEY as wakeup source. and this kind of keys might
> >>> not be GPIO at all.
> >>> there is a special power domain which is still open for it.
> >>
> >> many SoC?
> >>
> >> As I knew, most SoC has supported various wakeup source.
> >> As you comment, if specific SoC support only one special key
> >> for wakeup from suspend state, I think it isn't common.
> >>
> >> Also,
> >> This patch isn't necessary on SoCs which support various wakeup source (e.g., external interrupt).
> >> As you comment, this issue has dependecy on specific SoC. Why did you think this common code?
> > 
> > i am not thinking this patch must be common codes but i think the
> > extcon should provide common codes to support all chips. that is what
> > a framework should consider.
> > 
> > if there is no this or things similar with this, how could extcon
> > support the chips which don't support receiving sleep gpio interrupts?
> 
> Sure, subsystem should support all cases related to this issue.
> 
> I'd like to send common patch to support all cases as we discussed.
> If some patch support all case, I would review and apply it.
> 
> Chanwoo Choi

Dear Barry and Chanwoo,


What about having a flag in extcon platform data that describes
whether this extcon-gpio requires status double checking at resume
or not?


Cheers,
MyungJoo

ÿôèº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËÿ±éݶ\x17¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±þG«éÿŠ{ayº\x1dʇڙë,j\a­¢f£¢·hšïêÿ‘êçz_è®\x03(­éšŽŠÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?™¨è­Ú&£ø§~á¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?–I¥

Re: Re: [PATCH 1/1] extcon: gpio: Add power resume support

[Barry Song]

2013/12/23 MyungJoo Ham <myungjoo.ham@samsung.com>:
>> On 12/23/2013 05:13 PM, Barry Song wrote:
>> > 2013/12/23 Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>:
>> >> On 12/23/2013 04:36 PM, Barry Song wrote:
>> >>> 2013/12/23 Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>:
>> >>>> On 12/23/2013 03:10 PM, Barry Song wrote:
>> >>>>> 2013/12/23 Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>:
>> >>>>>> On 12/20/2013 05:09 PM, rjying wrote:
>> >>>>>>> From: Rongjun Ying <rongjun.ying@csr.com>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> After system resume, need send extcon uevent to userspace
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Why did extcon send uevent after wakeup from suspend?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> If extcon cable is attatched or detached on suspend state,
>> >>>>>> Kernel can detect the interrupt about changed state of extcon.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> irq controller has lost power in suspend, so there is no pending interrupt.
>> >>>>> and HW will not pend any interrupt when we hotplug cable during sleep.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> No, SoC in suspend state must maintain the minimum power under 1mA
>> >>>> if completed the power-optimization on suspend state.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If user insert USB cable to target, the external interrupt connected to
>> >>>> USB port is happened. And kernel would be waked up from suspend state
>> >>>> to operate proper interrupt handler of external interrupt.
>> >>>
>> >>> no. not every USB supports that. that depends on the power domain design of SoC.
>> >>
>> >> USB is only example for gpio control in suspend state.
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Also,
>> >>>> Input subsystem used gpio-keys driver for power button..
>> >>>> If user press power button in suspend state, target would be waked up from suspend state.
>> >>>> It is same case both extcon gpio and gpio-keys of input subsystem.
>> >>>
>> >>> no. it depends on the SoC design. many SoC only support 1 special key
>> >>> which can work as ON-KEY as wakeup source. and this kind of keys might
>> >>> not be GPIO at all.
>> >>> there is a special power domain which is still open for it.
>> >>
>> >> many SoC?
>> >>
>> >> As I knew, most SoC has supported various wakeup source.
>> >> As you comment, if specific SoC support only one special key
>> >> for wakeup from suspend state, I think it isn't common.
>> >>
>> >> Also,
>> >> This patch isn't necessary on SoCs which support various wakeup source (e.g., external interrupt).
>> >> As you comment, this issue has dependecy on specific SoC. Why did you think this common code?
>> >
>> > i am not thinking this patch must be common codes but i think the
>> > extcon should provide common codes to support all chips. that is what
>> > a framework should consider.
>> >
>> > if there is no this or things similar with this, how could extcon
>> > support the chips which don't support receiving sleep gpio interrupts?
>>
>> Sure, subsystem should support all cases related to this issue.
>>
>> I'd like to send common patch to support all cases as we discussed.
>> If some patch support all case, I would review and apply it.
>>
>> Chanwoo Choi
>
> Dear Barry and Chanwoo,
>
>
> What about having a flag in extcon platform data that describes
> whether this extcon-gpio requires status double checking at resume
> or not?

MyungJoo,

Thanks!
i am ok. what about naming it as "bool lost_sleep_irq"? default, it is
0, for chips that will lose sleeping IRQ, set it to 1?

Chanwoo, how do you think?

>
>
> Cheers,
> MyungJoo
>

-barry