[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <564B1618.10806@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 11:57:12 +0000
From: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for
IRQ chips
Hi Geert,
On 16/11/15 10:48, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>> Handling it automatically needs more bookkeeping than a simple reference
>>> count.
>>
>> So what would you suggest? Adding a pm_runtime_register_irq() API that
>> would register an IRQ with the device that you want RPM to handle? Not
>> sure if there is a better/easier way to handle this.
>
> The irqchip needs to keep track how many times request_irq() has been
> called, cfr. your suggestion above.
>
> On the other side, the system needs to keep track how many times request_irq()
> has been called for each irqchip, so it can subtract those numbers from the
> irqchip's counters during suspend of the device, and re-add them during resume.
> So we need at least a "struct device *" parameter for request_irq().
> devm_request_irq() already has that, but not all drivers use that.
Yes that would make sense. However, I am wondering if the
syscore suspend/resume operators could be used here to do something
like ...
pm_runtime_disable(dev);
if (!pm_runtime_status_suspended(dev))
chip->irq_runtime_suspend(data);
> However, I think this should be looked at into the context of "[RFD]
> Functional dependencies between devices".
> https://lwn.net/Articles/662205/
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/10/27/388
>
> There can be other dependencies than interrupts between devices.
> All functions using dependencies need a "struct device *" parameter to
> record information.
Yes I like the sound of that. That would be ideal. However, I am
guessing that that is a way off at the moment ...
Cheers
Jon
--
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