[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2194398.CCV6AEYQ7u@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 02:03:08 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Sylvain Rochet <gradator@...dator.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
"rtc-linux@...glegroups.com" <rtc-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
"linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] watchdog: at91sam9: request the irq with IRQF_NO_SUSPEND
On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 11:33:05 PM Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 10/03/2015 at 23:31:52 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote :
> > On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 10:33:17 PM Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 09/03/2015 at 15:30:01 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote :
> > > > > > > Actaully, your platform should just refuse to enter suspend-to-RAM
> > > > > > > when hw watchdog is enabled.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Quite likely, depending on how exactly the suspend is implemented.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > We've had absolutely zero complain on that. It is quite clear in the
> > > > > datasheet that failing to refresh the watchdog once started will lead to
> > > > > a reset and that it is impossible to stop.
> > > > > It is actually quite convenient to also ensure that you can actually
> > > > > wake up from suspend because that can obviously go wrong.
> > > >
> > > > I gather then that the suspend implementation is such that touching the
> > > > watchdog periodically while suspended is not a problem.
> > > >
> > > > Again, can you please tell me how suspend is implemented on at91?
> > > >
> > >
> > > It actually depends on the architecture (at91rm9200, at91sam9 or sama5)
> > > but basically, the clocks are switched off in almost all the peripheral
> > > drivers then the ram self refresh activated, the master clock is
> > > switched off using code running from SRAM and the core is then waiting
> > > for interrupt.
> >
> > OK, so it looks like enable_irq_wake() doesn't actually affect the hardware
> > on those platforms, is that correct?
> >
>
> I didn't exactly look in details but apart from the wakeup from gpio
> handling (keeping the pio controller clocked in the case one of its gpio
> has wakeup enabled), I don't think it does much more. It uses
> irq_gc_set_wake().
Well, that only modifies gc->wake_active, so no hardware interactions.
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
--
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