[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55802081.8050200@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 14:11:29 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>
CC: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
"linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Chanho Park <parkch98@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
Peter Chubb <peter.chubb@...ta.com.au>,
Shuah Khan <shuahkhan@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] irqchip: exynos-combiner: Save IRQ enable set
on suspend
On 16/06/15 13:32, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> 2015-06-16 0:00 GMT+09:00 Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>:
>> On 06/15/2015 11:01 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
[...]
>>>
>>> Agreed. But I would suggest also to add MASK_ON_SUSPEND and
>>> set_irq_wake also and then you can restore iff it's non-zero as
>>> irq core will take care of most of the non-wakeup sources.
>>> Because I am planning to push
>>
>> I've looking at this and a problem I found is that IIUC the
>> set_irq_wake is not propagated from the the Exynos pinctrl / GPIO
>> driver which is the combiner's external interrupt source so the
>> callback is never called. Which means that right now only the
>> state of the wakeup source IRQs can't be saved since that
>> information is not present.
>>
>> The drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos.c driver enables and
>> disables the combiner interrupts but its .irq_set_wake handler
>> only updates the wakeup source mask for the external interrupts but
>> does not call the combiner .set_irq_wake so that should be changed
>> as well.
>>
>
> As far as I'm aware of, wake-up events from pin controllers don't go
> through GIC, but rather directly to PMU, which is a dedicated unit
> responsible for power management and not a standalone interrupt
> controller (well actually I saw a series making it a cascaded
> controller some time ago, but I'm not sure if that went in). Based on
> this, I don't think we have to call set_irq_wake on GIC. Correct me
> if I'm wrong, though.
Thanks for the details, this was my assumption when Doug confirmed that
the combiner is also powered down, either there must be some bypass or a
dedicated logic to wakeup. But I was not sure though so insisted
set_irq_wake but based on what you say it's not required.
Regards,
Sudeep
--
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