[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <569548AA.8090903@ti.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 20:40:42 +0200
From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
To: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>
CC: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 3/8] genirq: Add runtime power management support
for IRQ chips
Hi Jon,
On 12/17/2015 12:48 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
> Some IRQ chips may be located in a power domain outside of the CPU
> subsystem and hence will require device specific runtime power management.
> In order to support such IRQ chips, add a pointer for a device structure
> to the irq_chip structure, and if this pointer is populated by the IRQ
> chip driver and the flag CHIP_HAS_RPM is set, then the pm_runtime_get/put
> APIs for this chip will be called when an IRQ is requested/freed,
> respectively.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
I've tried to test these patches with OMAP GPIO and I see it works, in general.
"In general" - because OMAP GPIO has some code which is expected to be used
very late during suspend or when entering deep CPUIdle states, so I can't use
this approach "out-of-the-box" until i find the way to sort it out.
Hope some one else can try to test it with GPIO. Soren?
> ---
> include/linux/irq.h | 4 ++++
> kernel/irq/internals.h | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> kernel/irq/manage.c | 7 +++++++
> 3 files changed, 35 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/irq.h b/include/linux/irq.h
> index 3c1c96786248..7a61a7f76177 100644
> --- a/include/linux/irq.h
> +++ b/include/linux/irq.h
...
>
> diff --git a/kernel/irq/manage.c b/kernel/irq/manage.c
> index 2a429b061171..8a96e4f1e985 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq/manage.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c
> @@ -1116,6 +1116,10 @@ __setup_irq(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc *desc, struct irqaction *new)
> if (!try_module_get(desc->owner))
> return -ENODEV;
>
> + ret = chip_pm_get(desc);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> new->irq = irq;
>
> /*
> @@ -1400,6 +1404,7 @@ out_thread:
> put_task_struct(t);
> }
> out_mput:
> + chip_pm_put(desc);
> module_put(desc->owner);
> return ret;
> }
Here I still think, that for this solution to be complete It might be good to add additional
API to request/free chained IRQs. This is not usual case for GPIO drivers,
but with AGIC it seems possible. If no objection I can do rfc.
> @@ -1513,6 +1518,7 @@ static struct irqaction *__free_irq(unsigned int irq, void *dev_id)
> }
> }
>
> + chip_pm_put(desc);
> module_put(desc->owner);
> kfree(action->secondary);
> return action;
> @@ -1799,6 +1805,7 @@ static struct irqaction *__free_percpu_irq(unsigned int irq, void __percpu *dev_
>
> unregister_handler_proc(irq, action);
>
> + chip_pm_put(desc);
> module_put(desc->owner);
> return action;
>
>
--
regards,
-grygorii
Powered by blists - more mailing lists