| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20140919030333.GA6088@kahuna>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 22:03:33 -0500
From: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: <lee.jones@...aro.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, Keerthy <j-keerthy@...com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...aro.org>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
<linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 3/3] mfd: palmas: Add support for optional wakeup
On 17:57-20140918, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2014, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > +static irqreturn_t palmas_wake_irq(int irq, void *_palmas)
> > +{
> > + /*
> > + * Return Not handled so that interrupt is disabled.
>
> And how is that interrupt disabled by returning IRQ_NONE? You mean it
> gets disabled after it got reraised 100000 times and the spurious
> detector kills it?
No, that does not happen due to the hardware involved:
http://fpaste.org/134757/09428214/ (there are still fixes needed to
various drivers to completely achieve low power states).
Explanation below:
>
> > + * Level event ensures that the event is eventually handled
> > + * by the appropriate chip handler already registered
>
> Eventually handled? So eventually it's not handled?
I had previously tried explaining this in v1:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4743321/
I agree it is a little convoluted, so will try again: mainly because
of the hardware entities involved. Two different hardware generate
interrupt. A GPIO hardware block handles palmas interrupts when SoC
is ON, However with GPIO block active, we cannot achieve low power
suspend (deep sleep) for the SoC, so, we switch off all GPIOs and SoC
hardware blocks OFF as part of the sequence of going to low power
suspend (mem), and depend on the hardware controlling the pins of the
SoC to generate wakeup event (wakeirq).
wakeirq is provided by drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c (implementation
to handle pad generated interrupt source).
wakeirq is generated by the hardware at the pin (we call it control
module in TI SoC), this generates an interrupt on level change. Palmas
generates level interrupt, and the level is cleared when interrupt
source is cleared.
At suspend - we enable_irq(wakeirq) - this arms the pin for palmas
interrupt to generate an interrupt when level changes.
We start the wake sequence in deep sleep (only thing alive is that
control module, every thing else, including GPIO block is powered
off).
On generating a wakeup event (in the example log, I used palmas power
button), palmas generates a level event, the transition triggers two things:
a) control module generates wakeirq (detecting the level shift)
b) wakeirq causes wakeup of SoC from deep sleep.
wakeirq wont be generated again by the hardware because pinctrl handles
the wakeirq interrupt event in the control module.
At resume - we disable_irq wakeirq -which in turn disables the pin for
generating interrupts if level ever changes again.
GPIO block is restored as part of resume path, and we generate the
handler for palmas regular interrupt service which in turn goes and
detects the real event and handles it.
I suppose I can improve the commit message to elaborate this better?
Will that help?
>
> > + */
> > + return IRQ_NONE;
> > +}
> > +
> > int palmas_ext_control_req_config(struct palmas *palmas,
> > enum palmas_external_requestor_id id, int ext_ctrl, bool enable)
> > {
> > @@ -409,6 +420,7 @@ static void palmas_dt_to_pdata(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> > pdata->mux_from_pdata = 1;
> > pdata->pad2 = prop;
> > }
> > + pdata->wakeirq = irq_of_parse_and_map(node, 1);
> >
> > /* The default for this register is all masked */
> > ret = of_property_read_u32(node, "ti,power-ctrl", &prop);
> > @@ -521,6 +533,7 @@ static int palmas_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> > i2c_set_clientdata(i2c, palmas);
> > palmas->dev = &i2c->dev;
> > palmas->irq = i2c->irq;
> > + palmas->wakeirq = pdata->wakeirq;
> >
> > match = of_match_device(of_palmas_match_tbl, &i2c->dev);
> >
> > @@ -587,6 +600,25 @@ static int palmas_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *i2c,
> > if (ret < 0)
> > goto err_i2c;
> >
> > + if (!palmas->wakeirq)
> > + goto no_wake_irq;
> > +
> > + ret = devm_request_irq(palmas->dev, palmas->wakeirq,
> > + palmas_wake_irq,
> > + pdata->irq_flags,
> > + dev_name(palmas->dev),
> > + &palmas);
> > + if (ret < 0) {
> > + dev_err(palmas->dev, "Invalid wakeirq(%d) (res: %d), skiping\n",
> > + palmas->wakeirq, ret);
> > + palmas->wakeirq = 0;
> > + } else {
> > + /* We use wakeirq only during suspend-resume path */
> > + device_set_wakeup_capable(palmas->dev, true);
> > + disable_irq_nosync(palmas->wakeirq);
>
> Urgh. Why nosysnc? And why do you want to do that at all?
>
> irq_set_status_flags(irq, IRQ_NOAUTOEN);
>
> Is what you want to set before requesting the irq.
Aaah, OK. thanks on the suggestion. will do that.
>
>
> > + }
> > +
> > +no_wake_irq:
> > no_irq:
> > slave = PALMAS_BASE_TO_SLAVE(PALMAS_PU_PD_OD_BASE);
> > addr = PALMAS_BASE_TO_REG(PALMAS_PU_PD_OD_BASE,
> > @@ -706,6 +738,34 @@ static int palmas_i2c_remove(struct i2c_client *i2c)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > +static int palmas_i2c_suspend(struct i2c_client *i2c, pm_message_t mesg)
> > +{
> > + struct palmas *palmas = i2c_get_clientdata(i2c);
> > + struct device *dev = &i2c->dev;
> > +
> > + if (!palmas->wakeirq)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + if (device_may_wakeup(dev))
> > + enable_irq(palmas->wakeirq);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int palmas_i2c_resume(struct i2c_client *i2c)
> > +{
> > + struct palmas *palmas = i2c_get_clientdata(i2c);
> > + struct device *dev = &i2c->dev;
> > +
> > + if (!palmas->wakeirq)
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + if (device_may_wakeup(dev))
> > + disable_irq_nosync(palmas->wakeirq);
>
> Again, why nosync?
true - nosync is not necessary at here. disable_irq is however necessary
as we are not interested in wakeup events for level changes.
We just use the enable/disable to control when we'd want to arm the pin
for waking up from suspend state.
--
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists