linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v11 4/5] PCI / PM: Add support for the PCIe WAKE# signal for OF

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Fri, 29 Dec 2017 09:15:48 -0800
From:   Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        JeffyChen <jeffy.chen@...k-chips.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
        Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux PCI <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v11 4/5] PCI / PM: Add support for the PCIe WAKE#
 signal for OF

* Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> [171228 17:33]:
> On Thursday, December 28, 2017 5:51:34 PM CET Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > 
> > Well Brian had a concern where we would have to implement PM runtime
> > for all device drivers for PCI devices.
> 
> Why would we?

Seems at least I was a bit confused. In the PCIe case the WAKE# is
owned by the PCIe slot, not the child PCIe device. So you're right,
there should be no need for the child PCIe device drivers to
implement runtime PM.

I was thinking the wakeirq case with WLAN on SDIO bus. Some WLAN
devices can have a hardwired OOB wakeirq wired to a GPIO controller.
In that case the wakeirq is owned by the child device driver
(WLAN controller) and not by the SDIO slot. I was earlier
thinking this is the same as the "Figure 5-4" case 1, but it's
not.

So in the PCIe WAKE# case for device tree, we must have the
wakeirq property for the PCIe slot for the struct device managing
that slot, and not for the child device driver. I think it's
already this way in the most recent set of patches, I need to
look again.

> > So isn't my option 1 above similar to the PCIe spec "Figure 5-4"
> > case 2?
> 
> No, it isn't, because in that case there is no practical difference
> between WAKE# and an in-band PME message sent by the device (Beacon)
> from the software perspective.
> 
> WAKE# causes the switch to send a PME message upstream and that is
> handled by the Root Complex through the standard mechanism already
> supported by our existing PME driver (drivers/pci/pcie/pme.c).

OK. So if "Figure 5-4" case 2 is already handled then and we need
to just deal with "Figure 5-4" case 1 :)

> > Yeah. FYI, for the dedicated wakeirq cases I have, we need to keep
> > them masked during runtime to avoid tons of interrupts as they
> > are often wired to the RX pins.
> 
> OK
> 
> BTW, enable_irq_wake() should take care of the sharing, shouldn't it?

That can be used to tell us which device has wakeirq enabled for
wake-up events, but only for resume not runtiem PM. We still have the
shared IRQ problem to deal with. And the PCIe subsystem still needs
to go through the child devices.

> But the WAKE# thing is not just for waking up the system from sleep states,
> it is for runtime PM's wakeup signaling too.

Yes my test cases have it working for runtime PM and for waking
up system from suspend.

> > > > Currently nothing happens with wakeirqs if there's no struct
> > > > wakeup_source. On device_wakeup_enable() we call device_wakeup_attach()
> > > > that just copies dev->power.wakeirq to ws->wakeirq. And when struct
> > > > wake_source is freed the device should be active and wakeirq
> > > > disabled. Or are you seeing other issues here?
> > > 
> > > I'm suspicious about one thing, but I need to look deeper into the code. :-)
> 
> So we are fine except for the race and we need the wakeirq field in wakeup
> sources to automatically arm the wakeup IRQs during suspend.

OK.

> If I'm not mistaken, we only need something like the patch below (untested).

Seems like it should fix the race, I'll do some testing next week.

Regards,

Tony

> ---
>  drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c |    9 ++++-----
>  drivers/base/power/wakeup.c  |    2 +-
>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c
> @@ -33,7 +33,6 @@ static int dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(struct
>  				  struct wake_irq *wirq)
>  {
>  	unsigned long flags;
> -	int err;
>  
>  	if (!dev || !wirq)
>  		return -EINVAL;
> @@ -45,12 +44,12 @@ static int dev_pm_attach_wake_irq(struct
>  		return -EEXIST;
>  	}
>  
> -	err = device_wakeup_attach_irq(dev, wirq);
> -	if (!err)
> -		dev->power.wakeirq = wirq;
> +	dev->power.wakeirq = wirq;
> +	if (dev->power.wakeup)
> +		device_wakeup_attach_irq(dev, wirq);
>  
>  	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dev->power.lock, flags);
> -	return err;
> +	return 0;
>  }
>  
>  /**
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c
> @@ -303,7 +303,7 @@ int device_wakeup_attach_irq(struct devi
>  	}
>  
>  	if (ws->wakeirq)
> -		return -EEXIST;
> +		dev_err(dev, "Leftover wakeup IRQ found, overriding\n");
>  
>  	ws->wakeirq = wakeirq;
>  	return 0;
>