[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YG/ohhh3Tyet6InQ@atomide.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 08:39:18 +0300
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To: Chunfeng Yun <chunfeng.yun@...iatek.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
"open list:ULTRA-WIDEBAND (UWB) SUBSYSTEM:"
<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC..."
<linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>,
"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS"
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Tianping Fang <tianping.fang@...iatek.com>,
Eddie Hung <eddie.hung@...iatek.com>,
Ikjoon Jang <ikjn@...omium.org>,
Nicolas Boichat <drinkcat@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] PM: runtime: enable wake irq after runtime_suspend
hook called
* Chunfeng Yun <chunfeng.yun@...iatek.com> [210409 01:54]:
> On Thu, 2021-04-08 at 19:41 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 11:35 AM Chunfeng Yun <chunfeng.yun@...iatek.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > When the dedicated wake irq is level trigger, enable it before
> > > calling runtime_suspend, will trigger an interrupt.
> > >
> > > e.g.
> > > for a low level trigger type, it's low level at running time (0),
> > > and becomes high level when enters suspend (runtime_suspend (1) is
> > > called), a wakeup signal at (2) make it become low level, wake irq
> > > will be triggered.
> > >
> > > ------------------
> > > | ^ ^|
> > > ---------------- | | --------------
> > > |<---(0)--->|<--(1)--| (3) (2) (4)
> > >
> > > if we enable the wake irq before calling runtime_suspend during (0),
> > > an interrupt will arise, it causes resume immediately;
> >
> > But that's necessary to avoid missing a wakeup interrupt, isn't it?
> That's also what I worry about.
Yeah sounds like this patch will lead into missed wakeirqs.
Regards,
Tony
Powered by blists - more mailing lists