[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <28a7aa9b-8322-54df-1cfa-275805e2b044@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2022 12:01:21 -0600
From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>,
robh+dt@...nel.org, vkoul@...nel.org,
yung-chuan.liao@...ux.intel.com
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, quic_srivasam@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] soundwire: qcom: add in-band wake up interrupt
support
> @@ -1424,6 +1464,11 @@ static int swrm_runtime_resume(struct device *dev)
> struct qcom_swrm_ctrl *ctrl = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> int ret;
>
> + if (ctrl->wake_irq > 0) {
> + if (!irqd_irq_disabled(irq_get_irq_data(ctrl->wake_irq)))
> + disable_irq_nosync(ctrl->wake_irq);
> + }
> +
> clk_prepare_enable(ctrl->hclk);
This one is quite interesting. If you disable the IRQ mechanism but
haven't yet resumed the clock, that leaves a time window where the
peripheral could attempt to drive the line high. what happens in that case?
>
> if (ctrl->clock_stop_not_supported) {
> @@ -1491,6 +1536,11 @@ static int __maybe_unused swrm_runtime_suspend(struct device *dev)
>
> usleep_range(300, 305);
>
> + if (ctrl->wake_irq > 0) {
> + if (irqd_irq_disabled(irq_get_irq_data(ctrl->wake_irq)))
> + enable_irq(ctrl->wake_irq);
> + }
> +
and this one is similar, you could have a case where the peripheral
signals a wake immediately after the ClockStopNow frame, but you may not
yet have enabled the wake detection interrupt.
Would that imply that the wake is missed?
> return 0;
> }
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists