Message-ID: <56EC0F7D.8050106@ti.com>
Date:	Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:23:57 +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>,
	Benoît Cousson <bcousson@...libre.com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.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-tegra@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/15] genirq: Add runtime power management support for
 IRQ chips

On 03/18/2016 02:27 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
> 
> On 18/03/16 11:11, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>> Hi Jon,
>>
>> On 03/17/2016 04:19 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 CONFIG_PM is selected in the kernel
>>> configuration, then the pm_runtime_get/put APIs for this chip will be
>>> called when an IRQ is requested/freed, respectively.
>>>
>>> When entering system suspend and each interrupt is disabled if there is
>>> no wake-up set for that interrupt. For an IRQ chip that utilises runtime
>>> power management, print a warning message for each active interrupt that
>>> has no wake-up set because these interrupts may be unnecessarily keeping
>>> the IRQ chip enabled during system suspend.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
>>> ---
>>>    include/linux/irq.h    |  5 +++++
>>>    kernel/irq/chip.c      | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>    kernel/irq/internals.h |  1 +
>>>    kernel/irq/manage.c    | 14 +++++++++++---
>>>    kernel/irq/pm.c        |  3 +++
>>>    5 files changed, 72 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/irq.h b/include/linux/irq.h
>>> index c4de62348ff2..82f36390048d 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/irq.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/irq.h
>>> @@ -315,6 +315,7 @@ static inline irq_hw_number_t irqd_to_hwirq(struct irq_data *d)
>>>    /**
>>>     * struct irq_chip - hardware interrupt chip descriptor
>>>     *
>>> + * @parent:		pointer to associated device
>>>     * @name:		name for /proc/interrupts
>>>     * @irq_startup:	start up the interrupt (defaults to ->enable if NULL)
>>>     * @irq_shutdown:	shut down the interrupt (defaults to ->disable if NULL)
>>> @@ -354,6 +355,7 @@ static inline irq_hw_number_t irqd_to_hwirq(struct irq_data *d)
>>>     * @flags:		chip specific flags
>>>     */
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>>    
>>> diff --git a/kernel/irq/pm.c b/kernel/irq/pm.c
>>> index cea1de0161f1..ab436119084f 100644
>>> --- a/kernel/irq/pm.c
>>> +++ b/kernel/irq/pm.c
>>> @@ -83,6 +83,9 @@ static bool suspend_device_irq(struct irq_desc *desc)
>>>    		 * suspend_device_irqs().
>>>    		 */
>>>    		return true;
>>> +	} else if (!irq_chip_pm_suspended(&desc->irq_data)) {
>>> +		pr_warn("irq %d has no wakeup set and has not been freed!\n",
>>> +			desc->irq_data.irq);
>>
>> Sry. But I did not get this part of the patch :(
>>
>> static bool suspend_device_irq(struct irq_desc *desc)
>> {
>> 	if (!desc->action || irq_desc_is_chained(desc) ||
>> 	    desc->no_suspend_depth) {
>> 		pr_err("skip irq %d\n", irq_desc_get_irq(desc));
>> 		return false;
>> 	}
>>
>> 	if (irqd_is_wakeup_set(&desc->irq_data)) {
>> 		irqd_set(&desc->irq_data, IRQD_WAKEUP_ARMED);
>> 		/*
>> 		 * We return true here to force the caller to issue
>> 		 * synchronize_irq(). We need to make sure that the
>> 		 * IRQD_WAKEUP_ARMED is visible before we return from
>> 		 * suspend_device_irqs().
>> 		 */
>> 		pr_err("wakeup irq %d\n", irq_desc_get_irq(desc));
>> 		return true;
>> 	}
>>
>> ^^^^ Here you've added a warning
> 
> Yes, to warn if the IRQ is enabled but not a wake-up source ...
> 
> 	if (irqd_is_wakeup_set(&desc->irq_data)) {
> 		...
> 	} else if (!irq_chip_pm_suspended(&desc->irq_data)) {
> 		...
> 	}
> 
>> 	desc->istate |= IRQS_SUSPENDED;
>> 	__disable_irq(desc);
>>
>> ^^^^ Here non wakeup IRQs will be disabled
> 
> Yes, but this will not turn off the irqchip. It is legitimate for the
> chip to be enabled during suspend if an IRQ is enabled as a wakeup.
> 
> The purpose of the warning is to report any IRQs that are enabled at
> this point, but NOT wake-up sources. These could be unintentionally be
> keeping the chip active when it does not need to be.
> 
>> 	pr_err("%s __disable_irq irq %d\n", irq_desc_get_chip(desc)->name, irq_desc_get_irq(desc));
>>
>> 	/*
>> 	 * Hardware which has no wakeup source configuration facility
>> 	 * requires that the non wakeup interrupts are masked at the
>> 	 * chip level. The chip implementation indicates that with
>> 	 * IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND.
>> 	 */
>> 	if (irq_desc_get_chip(desc)->flags & IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND) {
>> 		mask_irq(desc);
>> 		pr_err("%s mask_irq irq %d\n", irq_desc_get_chip(desc)->name, irq_desc_get_irq(desc));
>> 	}
>>
>> 	return true;
>> }
>>
>> As result, there should be a ton of warnings if one IRQ (for example in GPIO irqchip)
>> is wakeup source, but all other are not.
> 
> No there should not be. Remember this is an else-if and ONLY if an IRQ
> is not a wake-up source AND enabled will you get a warning.

Sorry, but I don't see the "AND enabled" check any where in this file and
disabled irqs can be wakeup source - they shouldn't be masked.
But I'll stop commenting until i reproduce it.

Or do you mean free? 

> 
>> Also I'd like to note that:
>> - it is not expected that any IRQs have to be freed on enter Suspend
> 
> True, but surely they should have a wake-up enabled then? If not you are
> wasting power unnecessarily.
> 
> I realise that this is different to how interrupts for irqchips work
> today, but when we discussed this before, the only way to ensure that we
> can power-down an irqchip with PM is if all IRQs are freed [0]. So it is
> a slightly different mindset for irqchips with PM, that may be we
> shouldn't hold references to IRQs forever if we are not using them.
> 
>> - Primary interrupt controller is expected to be suspended from syscore_suspend()
>> - not Primary interrupt controllers may be Suspended from:
>>    -- dpm_suspend() or dpm_suspend_late() - usual case for external interrupt controllers
>>    GPIO expanders (I2C, SPI ..)
>>    -- dpm_suspend_noirq() - usual case for SoC peripherals like OMAP GPIO
>> 	dpm_suspend_noirq
>> 	|- suspend_device_irqs()
>> 	|- device_suspend_noirq() [1] <-- OMAP GPIO do suspend here.
>>    -- as always, some arches/maches may require hacks in platform code.
>>    
>> So, In my opinion, suspend has to be handled by each irqchip driver separately,
>> most probably at suspend_noirq level [1], because only  irqchip driver
>> now sees a full picture and knows if it can suspend or not, and when, and how.
>> (may require to use pm_runtime_force_suspend/resume()).
> 
> I understand what you are saying, but at least in my mind if would be
> better if the clients of the IRQ chips using PM freed their interrupts
> when entering suspend. Quite possibly I am overlooking a use-case here
> or overhead of doing this, 

ok. seems you do mean "free".

oh :( That will require updating of all drivers (and if it will be taken into account that
wakeup can be configured from sysfs + devm_ - it will be painful).

> but it would avoid every irqchip having to
> handle this themselves and having a custom handler.

irqchip like TI OMAP GPIO will need custom handling any way even if it's not expected
to be Powered off during Suspend or deep CPUIdle states, simply because its state
in suspend is unknown - PM state managed automatically (and depends on many factors)
and wakeup can be handled by special HW in case if GPIO bank was really switched off.

>> I propose do not touch common/generic suspend code now. Any common code can be always
>> refactored later once there will be real drivers updated to use irqchip RPM
>> and which will support Suspend.
> 
> If this is strongly opposed, I would concede to making this a pr_debug()
> as I think it could be useful.

Probably yes, because most of the drivers now and IRQ PM core are not ready
for this approach. 

-- 
regards,
-grygorii

Powered by blists - more mailing lists