Re: [RFC PATCH] mmc: sdhci-of-at91: don't put device in suspend after probe

From	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [RFC PATCH] mmc: sdhci-of-at91: don't put device in suspend after probe
Date	2016-02-10 14:10 +0100
Message-ID	<r0CGS-2BB-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<r0zJ2-vX-45@gated-at.bofh.it> <r0BB8-1J1-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <r0Cxc-2iO-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	Intel Finland Oy, Registered Address: PL 281, 00181 Helsinki, Business Identity Code: 0357606 - 4, Domiciled in Helsinki

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/02/16 14:51, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
> 
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 01:50:44PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> On 10/02/16 11:58, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
>>> By putting the device in suspend at the end of the probe, it is
>>> impossible to wake up on non software event such as card
>>> insertion/removal.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@atmel.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Since I had no feedback on this topic:
>>> http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mmc/35160
>>>
>>> I would like to no more put the device in suspend at the end of the probe. If
>>> my device is suspended at the end of the probe, I have no issue to resume on
>>> a software event such as mounting my sdcard but hardware event such as card
>>> insertion and removal do not trigger a resume.
>>
>> You can't use runtime PM unless you have a way to wake-up.
>>
> 
> Thanks for your feedback. I am a bit disappointed since Ulf advised me to use
> runtime PM instead of system PM.
> 
>> Currently, sdhci disables card detect interrupts when runtime suspended,
>> and drivers use a card-detect GPIO to wake-up.
>>
> 
> It is what I have seen going through the sdhci layer. So next question is:
> is it normal to not take care of card detect interrupts? We keep enabled
> some IRQs probably for SDIO modules IRQ but not for card detection. I
> don't understand the reason.

Does sdhci-of-at91.c generate card detect interrupts while runtime suspended?

Thread

[RFC PATCH] mmc: sdhci-of-at91: don't put device in suspend after probe Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@atmel.com> - 2016-02-10 11:00 +0100
  Re: [RFC PATCH] mmc: sdhci-of-at91: don't put device in suspend after  probe Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> - 2016-02-10 13:00 +0100
    Re: [RFC PATCH] mmc: sdhci-of-at91: don't put device in suspend  after probe Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@atmel.com> - 2016-02-10 14:00 +0100
      Re: [RFC PATCH] mmc: sdhci-of-at91: don't put device in suspend after  probe Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> - 2016-02-10 14:10 +0100
        Re: [RFC PATCH] mmc: sdhci-of-at91: don't put device in suspend  after probe Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@atmel.com> - 2016-02-10 15:20 +0100
          Re: [RFC PATCH] mmc: sdhci-of-at91: don't put device in suspend after  probe Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com> - 2016-02-10 15:30 +0100
            Re: [RFC PATCH] mmc: sdhci-of-at91: don't put device in suspend  after probe Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@atmel.com> - 2016-02-10 16:40 +0100
      Re: [RFC PATCH] mmc: sdhci-of-at91: don't put device in suspend after probe Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> - 2016-02-10 17:00 +0100
        Re: [RFC PATCH] mmc: sdhci-of-at91: don't put device in suspend  after probe Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@atmel.com> - 2016-02-11 10:10 +0100
          Re: [RFC PATCH] mmc: sdhci-of-at91: don't put device in suspend after probe Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> - 2016-02-11 10:50 +0100
            Re: [RFC PATCH] mmc: sdhci-of-at91: don't put device in suspend  after probe Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@atmel.com> - 2016-02-11 12:10 +0100

csiph-web