[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CO1PR11MB477144A2A055B390825A9FF4D5199@CO1PR11MB4771.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2021 10:10:26 +0000
From: "Ismail, Mohammad Athari" <mohammad.athari.ismail@...el.com>
To: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
CC: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net] net: phy: reconfigure PHY WOL in resume if WOL option
still enabled
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 8, 2021 10:49 AM
> To: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>; Ismail, Mohammad Athari
> <mohammad.athari.ismail@...el.com>
> Cc: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>; David S . Miller
> <davem@...emloft.net>; Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>; Jakub Kicinski
> <kuba@...nel.org>; netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH net] net: phy: reconfigure PHY WOL in resume if WOL
> option still enabled
>
>
>
> On 7/7/2021 6:23 PM, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 08, 2021 at 08:42:53AM +0800,
> mohammad.athari.ismail@...el.com wrote:
> >> From: Mohammad Athari Bin Ismail <mohammad.athari.ismail@...el.com>
> >>
> >> When the PHY wakes up from suspend through WOL event, there is a need
> >> to reconfigure the WOL if the WOL option still enabled. The main
> >> operation is to clear the WOL event status. So that, subsequent WOL
> >> event can be triggered properly.
> >>
> >> This fix is needed especially for the PHY that operates in PHY_POLL
> >> mode where there is no handler (such as interrupt handler) available
> >> to clear the WOL event status.
> >
> > I still think this architecture is wrong.
> >
> > The interrupt pin is wired to the PMIC. Can the PMIC be modelled as an
> > interrupt controller? That would allow the interrupt to be handled as
> > normal, and would mean you don't need polling, and you don't need this
> > hack.
>
> I have to agree with Andrew here, and if the answer is that you cannot model
> this PMIC as an interrupt controller, cannot the config_init() callback of the
> driver acknowledge then disable the interrupts as it normally would if you were
> cold booting the system? This would also allow you to properly account for the
> PHY having woken-up the system.
Hi Florian,
Thank you for the suggestion.
If I understand correctly, you are suggesting to acknowledge and clear the WOL status in config_init() callback function. Am I correct?
If yes, I did try to add a code to clear WOL status in marvell_config_init() function (we are using Marvell Alaska 88E1512). But, I found that, if the platform wake up from S3(mem) or S4(disk), the config_init() callback function is not called. As the result, WOL status not able to be cleared in config_init().
Please advice if you any suggestion.
-Athari-
> --
> Florian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists