On 03/18/2016 04:56 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: > > On 18/03/16 14:40, Jon Hunter wrote: >> On 18/03/16 14:23, Grygorii Strashko wrote: >>> On 03/18/2016 02:27 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >>>> >>>> On 18/03/16 11:11, Grygorii Strashko wrote: > > [snip] > >>> 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). >> >> Will it? I know that there are a few gpio chips that have some hacked >> ways to get around the PM issue, but I wonder how many drivers this >> really impacts. What sysfs entries are you referring too?
echo enabled > /sys/devices/platform/44000000.ocp/48020000.serial/tty/ttyS2/power/wakeup > > Thinking about this some more, yes I guess it would impact all drivers > that use a gpio but don't use it for a wake-up. I could see that could > be a few drivers indeed. yep. I've just tested it - gpio was requested through sysfs and configured as IRQ - do suspend the same is if GPIO is requested as IRQ only and not configured as wakeup source [ 319.669760] PM: late suspend of devices complete after 0.213 msecs [ 319.671195] irq 191 has no wakeup set and has not been freed! [ 319.673453] PM: noirq suspend of devices complete after 2.258 msecs this is very minimal configuration - the regular one is at ~30-50 devices most of them will use IRQ and only ~10% are used as wakeup sources. > >>>> 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. >> >> May be this calls for a new flag to not WARN if non-wakeup IRQs are not >> freed when entering suspend. > > Flag or pr_debug()? > Honestly, I don't know how to proceed - minimum is pr_debug. My personal opinion is still the same - don't touch suspend core code now, within this series. -- regards, -grygorii
