[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150123230200.GI19922@piout.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 00:02:00 +0100
From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
To: Sylvain Rochet <sylvain.rochet@...secur.com>
Cc: Wenyou Yang <wenyou.yang@...el.com>, nicolas.ferre@...el.com,
linux@....linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
peda@...ntia.se, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/12] pm: at91: the standby mode uses the same sram
function as the suspend to memory mode
On 23/01/2015 at 18:32:34 +0100, Sylvain Rochet wrote :
> Hello Wenyou,
>
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 04:17:00PM +0800, Wenyou Yang wrote:
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> > index 691e6db..a1010f0 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c
> (...)
> > static int at91_pm_enter(suspend_state_t state)
> > {
> > at91_pinctrl_gpio_suspend();
> >
> > switch (state) {
> > + /*
> > + * Suspend-to-RAM is like STANDBY plus slow clock mode, so
> > + * drivers must suspend more deeply, the master clock switches
> > + * to the clk32k and turns off the main oscillator
> > + *
> > + * STANDBY mode has *all* drivers suspended; ignores irqs not
> > + * marked as 'wakeup' event sources; and reduces DRAM power.
> > + * But otherwise it's identical to PM_SUSPEND_ON: cpu idle, and
> > + * nothing fancy done with main or cpu clocks.
> > + */
> > + case PM_SUSPEND_MEM:
> > + case PM_SUSPEND_STANDBY:
> (...)
> > - case PM_SUSPEND_MEM:
> > - /*
> > - * Ensure that clocks are in a valid state.
> > - */
> > - if (!at91_pm_verify_clocks())
> > - goto error;
> (...)
> > + if (!at91_pm_verify_clocks())
> > + goto error;
> >
> (...)
> > - case PM_SUSPEND_STANDBY:
> > - /*
> > - * NOTE: the Wait-for-Interrupt instruction needs to be
>
> By doing that at91_pm_verify_clocks() is now called for both MEM and
> STANDBY targets.
>
> In my opinion this function is misnamed and should be called
> at91_pm_verify_clocks_for_slow_clock_mode(). This function actually
> checks if we can safely switch to slow clock mode, if some peripherals
> are still using the master clock, we abort the suspend because we can't
> suspend in good condition. Hard unclocking peripherals which ask for a
> soft stop, like USB controllers, is something we should avoid doing.
>
> This function checks if USB PLL and PLL B are stopped, if PCK0..PCK3 are
> stopped too (or just using the 32k clock). If all drivers suspended
> correctly this is the state we expect and we can suspend in a deep
> state.
>
> Not this is currently not the case in linux-next, suspend/resume support
> to all Atmel USB drivers (ehci-atmel,ohci-at91,atmel_usba,at91_udc) are
> in my series:
> [PATCHv7 0/6] USB: host: Atmel OHCI and EHCI drivers improvements
> <1421761144-11767-1-git-send-email-sylvain.rochet@...secur.com>
> [PATCHv6 0/5] USB: gadget: atmel_usba_udc: Driver improvements
> <1421945805-31129-1-git-send-email-sylvain.rochet@...secur.com>
>
> We are not going to change any clock for STANDBY target, there is no
> clock to check, so we don't need to call at91_pm_verify_clocks() for
> this target.
>
I think we should actually stop checking those clocks. In the meantime,
you are right and at91_pm_verify_clocks must not be called
unconditionally.
--
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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