From: jeffy <jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bhelgaas@google.com,
shawn.lin@rock-chips.com, dianders@chromium.org,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] PCI: rockchip: Add support for pcie wake irq
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 20:03:26 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5995860E.30105@rock-chips.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170816174936.GB99323@google.com>
Hi Brian,
i've tried dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq, it doesn't work well on
upstream kernel(for level irq).
it looks like we would delay real set trigger type to request irq after
this commit:
1e2a7d78499e irqdomain: Don't set type when mapping an IRQ
so calling irq_set_status_flags before request irq would lose trigger
type setting.
things work well after reverted that commit, so i will send my patch
soon, and ask irq people about it :)
On 08/17/2017 01:49 AM, Brian Norris wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 03:52:22PM +0800, Jeffy Chen wrote:
>> Add support for PCIE_WAKE pin in rockchip pcie driver.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com>
>> ---
>>
>> drivers/pci/host/pcie-rockchip.c | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-rockchip.c b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-rockchip.c
>> index 7bb9870f6d8c..f969a6d3cd85 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pci/host/pcie-rockchip.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pci/host/pcie-rockchip.c
>> @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@
>> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
>> #include <linux/reset.h>
>> #include <linux/regmap.h>
>> +#include <linux/suspend.h>
>>
>> /*
>> * The upper 16 bits of PCIE_CLIENT_CONFIG are a write mask for the lower 16
>> @@ -226,6 +227,8 @@ struct rockchip_pcie {
>> struct regulator *vpcie1v8; /* 1.8V power supply */
>> struct regulator *vpcie0v9; /* 0.9V power supply */
>> struct gpio_desc *ep_gpio;
>> + int wake_irq;
>> + bool wake_by_pcie;
>> u32 lanes;
>> u8 root_bus_nr;
>> int link_gen;
>> @@ -853,6 +856,20 @@ static void rockchip_pcie_legacy_int_handler(struct irq_desc *desc)
>> chained_irq_exit(chip, desc);
>> }
>>
>> +static irqreturn_t rockchip_pcie_wake_irq_handler(int irq, void *arg)
>> +{
>> + struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip = arg;
>> +
>> + rockchip->wake_by_pcie = true;
>> +
>> + disable_irq_nosync(rockchip->wake_irq);
>> + disable_irq_wake(rockchip->wake_irq);
>> +
>> + pm_wakeup_event(rockchip->dev, 0);
>> + pm_system_wakeup();
>> +
>> + return IRQ_HANDLED;
>> +}
>>
>> /**
>> * rockchip_pcie_parse_dt - Parse Device Tree
>> @@ -868,6 +885,7 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_parse_dt(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip)
>> struct resource *regs;
>> int irq;
>> int err;
>> + bool wakeup = 0;
>
> '0' should be 'false'.
right
>
>>
>> regs = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev,
>> IORESOURCE_MEM,
>> @@ -1018,6 +1036,21 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_parse_dt(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip)
>> return err;
>> }
>>
>> + rockchip->wake_irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, "wake");
>> + if (rockchip->wake_irq >= 0) {
>> + err = devm_request_irq(dev, rockchip->wake_irq,
>> + rockchip_pcie_wake_irq_handler,
>> + 0, "pcie-wake", rockchip);
>> + if (err) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "failed to request PCIe wake IRQ\n");
>> + return err;
>> + }
>> +
>> + disable_irq(rockchip->wake_irq);
>
> If you're worried about keeping this disabled at first, you can just use
> this nifty trick (since this isn't a shared interrupt) -- call this
> before requesting the IRQ:
>
> irq_set_status_flags(rockchip->wake_irq, IRQ_NOAUTOEN);
>
> You could also consider using dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq() to handle
> this -- but beware, it still might not quite handle level-triggered
> interrupt properly. I'm pretty sure Tony Lindgren would be happy to get
> testing or patches for that though :) He already sent me something a
> while back but I didn't have time to test it out.
ok, that seems very handy
>
>> + wakeup = device_property_read_bool(dev, "wakeup-source");
>> + }
>> + device_init_wakeup(dev, wakeup);
>
> Shouldn't you call 'device_init_wakeup(dev, false)' on remove()?
ok
>
>> +
>> rockchip->vpcie3v3 = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "vpcie3v3");
>> if (IS_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3)) {
>> if (PTR_ERR(rockchip->vpcie3v3) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
>> @@ -1270,6 +1303,30 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_wait_l2(struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static int __maybe_unused rockchip_pcie_suspend(struct device *dev)
>
> Why do this in suspend() instead of suspend_noirq()? You shouldn't
> really need a separate method here.
>
> Note that this should be a level-triggered interrupt which remains
> asserted, so there should be no chance of "missing" it if you don't
> enable it in time.
>
> And on a related note: if you try the dedicated wake irq approach, this
> will only occur just before the noirq phase anyway, since
> device_wakeup_arm_wake_irqs() is called in dpm_suspend_noirq().
right
>
>> +{
>> + struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>> +
>> + rockchip->wake_by_pcie = false;
>> +
>> + if (device_may_wakeup(dev)) {
>> + enable_irq_wake(rockchip->wake_irq);
>> + enable_irq(rockchip->wake_irq);
>> + }
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int __maybe_unused rockchip_pcie_resume(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> + struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>> +
>> + if (device_may_wakeup(dev) && !rockchip->wake_by_pcie) {
>
> The use of 'wake_by_pcie' is racy; an interrupt could be in flight (but
> not completed), and so it could set 'wake_by_pcie' just after you're
> reading this. Then, you'll get a double-disable.
>
> I believe the safe way to handle this would be to use an atomic
> test-and-set / test-and-clear approach (either atomic_cmpxchg(), or use
> a spinlock).
right, and we don't need these if using dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq
>
>> + disable_irq(rockchip->wake_irq);
>> + disable_irq_wake(rockchip->wake_irq);
>> + }
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> static int __maybe_unused rockchip_pcie_suspend_noirq(struct device *dev)
>> {
>> struct rockchip_pcie *rockchip = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
>> @@ -1548,6 +1605,7 @@ static int rockchip_pcie_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> }
>>
>> static const struct dev_pm_ops rockchip_pcie_pm_ops = {
>> + SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(rockchip_pcie_suspend, rockchip_pcie_resume)
>> SET_NOIRQ_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS(rockchip_pcie_suspend_noirq,
>> rockchip_pcie_resume_noirq)
>> };
>
> Brian
>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-17 12:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-16 7:52 [RFC PATCH 0/3] PCI: rockchip: Move PCIE_WAKE handling into rockchip pcie driver Jeffy Chen
2017-08-16 7:52 ` [RFC PATCH 1/3] PCI: rockchip: Add support for pcie wake irq Jeffy Chen
2017-08-16 9:00 ` Shawn Lin
2017-08-17 0:25 ` jeffy
2017-08-16 17:49 ` Brian Norris
2017-08-17 12:03 ` jeffy [this message]
2017-08-16 7:52 ` [RFC PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: " Jeffy Chen
2017-08-16 8:35 ` Shawn Lin
2017-08-17 6:17 ` jeffy
2017-08-16 7:52 ` [RFC PATCH 3/3] arm64: dts: rockchip: Handle pcie wake in pcie driver for Gru Jeffy Chen
2017-08-16 8:33 ` Shawn Lin
2017-08-16 16:43 ` Brian Norris
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=5995860E.30105@rock-chips.com \
--to=jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=briannorris@chromium.org \
--cc=dianders@chromium.org \
--cc=heiko@sntech.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=shawn.lin@rock-chips.com \
/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