Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1287545 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH] gpio: pl061: add support for wakeup configuration

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH] gpio: pl061: add support for wakeup configuration Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> - 2015-12-09 16:10 +0100
    Re: [PATCH] gpio: pl061: add support for wakeup configuration Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> - 2015-12-09 16:30 +0100
      Re: [PATCH] gpio: pl061: add support for wakeup configuration Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> - 2015-12-10 19:30 +0100
        Re: [PATCH] gpio: pl061: add support for wakeup configuration "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> - 2015-12-10 23:00 +0100

#1287545 — Re: [PATCH] gpio: pl061: add support for wakeup configuration

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:

> The PL061 supports interrupts and those can be wakeup interrupts. We
> need to provide support for configuring those interrupts as wakeup
> sources.
>
> This patch adds irq_set_wake callback for PL061 so that GPIO interrupts
> can be configured as wakeup.
>
> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> Cc: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c | 9 +++++++++
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c
> index 4d4b37676702..8b1cbd5767f9 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
>  #include <linux/module.h>
>  #include <linux/io.h>
>  #include <linux/ioport.h>
> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
>  #include <linux/irq.h>
>  #include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h>
>  #include <linux/bitops.h>
> @@ -269,12 +270,20 @@ static void pl061_irq_ack(struct irq_data *d)
>         spin_unlock(&chip->lock);
>  }
>
> +static int pl061_irq_set_wake(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int state)
> +{
> +       struct gpio_chip *gc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
> +
> +       return irq_set_irq_wake(gc->irq_parent, state);
> +}
> +
>  static struct irq_chip pl061_irqchip = {
>         .name           = "pl061",
>         .irq_ack        = pl061_irq_ack,
>         .irq_mask       = pl061_irq_mask,
>         .irq_unmask     = pl061_irq_unmask,
>         .irq_set_type   = pl061_irq_type,
> +       .irq_set_wake   = pl061_irq_set_wake,
>  };

Is this really all that is needed? Don't you need to call
device_wakeup_enable(&adev->dev, 1); on the amba (primecell)
device providing this GPIO, lest it may be suspended itself
and render this exercise pointless.

And if not, why not?

How are GPIO chips providing IRQs actually going to do this,
provided that they need to be kept awake themselves?

Adding some people to the conversation.

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1287571

On 09/12/15 15:08, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
>
>> The PL061 supports interrupts and those can be wakeup interrupts. We
>> need to provide support for configuring those interrupts as wakeup
>> sources.
>>
>> This patch adds irq_set_wake callback for PL061 so that GPIO interrupts
>> can be configured as wakeup.
>>
>> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
>> Cc: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c | 9 +++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c
>> index 4d4b37676702..8b1cbd5767f9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c
>> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
>>   #include <linux/module.h>
>>   #include <linux/io.h>
>>   #include <linux/ioport.h>
>> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
>>   #include <linux/irq.h>
>>   #include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h>
>>   #include <linux/bitops.h>
>> @@ -269,12 +270,20 @@ static void pl061_irq_ack(struct irq_data *d)
>>          spin_unlock(&chip->lock);
>>   }
>>
>> +static int pl061_irq_set_wake(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int state)
>> +{
>> +       struct gpio_chip *gc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
>> +
>> +       return irq_set_irq_wake(gc->irq_parent, state);
>> +}
>> +
>>   static struct irq_chip pl061_irqchip = {
>>          .name           = "pl061",
>>          .irq_ack        = pl061_irq_ack,
>>          .irq_mask       = pl061_irq_mask,
>>          .irq_unmask     = pl061_irq_unmask,
>>          .irq_set_type   = pl061_irq_type,
>> +       .irq_set_wake   = pl061_irq_set_wake,
>>   };
>
> Is this really all that is needed? Don't you need to call
> device_wakeup_enable(&adev->dev, 1); on the amba (primecell)
> device providing this GPIO, lest it may be suspended itself
> and render this exercise pointless.
>

Do you mean something like :


-->8--

diff --git i/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c w/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c
index 4d4b37676702..467e0b278cf0 100644
--- i/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c
+++ w/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c
@@ -354,6 +354,7 @@ static int pl061_probe(struct amba_device *adev, 
const struct amba_id *id)
         }

         amba_set_drvdata(adev, chip);
+       dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&adev->dev, irq);
         dev_info(&adev->dev, "PL061 GPIO chip @%pa registered\n",
                  &adev->res.start);

-->8--

If yes, I agree that's one possible solution.

> And if not, why not?
>

The only reason I didn't go for the above solution is that some
platforms may not have any gpio pins as wakeup source, so it may be
unnecessary to do that. Also in order to that, we also implicitly force
platforms to mark the GPIO controller as wakeup source rather than just
the few GPIO pins that are wakeup capable.

> How are GPIO chips providing IRQs actually going to do this,
> provided that they need to be kept awake themselves?
>

Not gone through all the implementations. Just started with PL061 when I
tested on Juno(Beware it doesn't work with std. firmware as there are
some know issues still under investigation)

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1288792

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> On 09/12/15 15:08, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The PL061 supports interrupts and those can be wakeup interrupts. We
>>> need to provide support for configuring those interrupts as wakeup
>>> sources.
>>>
>>> This patch adds irq_set_wake callback for PL061 so that GPIO interrupts
>>> can be configured as wakeup.
>>>
>>> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
>>> Cc: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c | 9 +++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c
>>> index 4d4b37676702..8b1cbd5767f9 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c
>>> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
>>>   #include <linux/module.h>
>>>   #include <linux/io.h>
>>>   #include <linux/ioport.h>
>>> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
>>>   #include <linux/irq.h>
>>>   #include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h>
>>>   #include <linux/bitops.h>
>>> @@ -269,12 +270,20 @@ static void pl061_irq_ack(struct irq_data *d)
>>>          spin_unlock(&chip->lock);
>>>   }
>>>
>>> +static int pl061_irq_set_wake(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int state)
>>> +{
>>> +       struct gpio_chip *gc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
>>> +
>>> +       return irq_set_irq_wake(gc->irq_parent, state);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>   static struct irq_chip pl061_irqchip = {
>>>          .name           = "pl061",
>>>          .irq_ack        = pl061_irq_ack,
>>>          .irq_mask       = pl061_irq_mask,
>>>          .irq_unmask     = pl061_irq_unmask,
>>>          .irq_set_type   = pl061_irq_type,
>>> +       .irq_set_wake   = pl061_irq_set_wake,
>>>   };
>>
>>
>> Is this really all that is needed? Don't you need to call
>> device_wakeup_enable(&adev->dev, 1); on the amba (primecell)
>> device providing this GPIO, lest it may be suspended itself
>> and render this exercise pointless.
>>
>
> Do you mean something like :
>
>
> -->8--
>
> diff --git i/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c w/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c
> index 4d4b37676702..467e0b278cf0 100644
> --- i/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c
> +++ w/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c
> @@ -354,6 +354,7 @@ static int pl061_probe(struct amba_device *adev, const
> struct amba_id *id)
>         }
>
>         amba_set_drvdata(adev, chip);
> +       dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&adev->dev, irq);

I don't really know :(

I was under the impression that we may need *both*, because if
the GPIO line is wakeup-capable, the wakeup event will not be
detected unless the GPIO controller is also online, simply.

Maybe:

if (any_lines_on_me_wakeup_capable)
    dev_pm_set_wake()...

I need the help from the power maintainers to figure this out...

Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1288959

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 07:22:12 PM Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote:
> > On 09/12/15 15:08, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:19 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The PL061 supports interrupts and those can be wakeup interrupts. We
> >>> need to provide support for configuring those interrupts as wakeup
> >>> sources.
> >>>
> >>> This patch adds irq_set_wake callback for PL061 so that GPIO interrupts
> >>> can be configured as wakeup.
> >>>
> >>> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> >>> Cc: Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>   drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c | 9 +++++++++
> >>>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c
> >>> index 4d4b37676702..8b1cbd5767f9 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c
> >>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c
> >>> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
> >>>   #include <linux/module.h>
> >>>   #include <linux/io.h>
> >>>   #include <linux/ioport.h>
> >>> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
> >>>   #include <linux/irq.h>
> >>>   #include <linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h>
> >>>   #include <linux/bitops.h>
> >>> @@ -269,12 +270,20 @@ static void pl061_irq_ack(struct irq_data *d)
> >>>          spin_unlock(&chip->lock);
> >>>   }
> >>>
> >>> +static int pl061_irq_set_wake(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int state)
> >>> +{
> >>> +       struct gpio_chip *gc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
> >>> +
> >>> +       return irq_set_irq_wake(gc->irq_parent, state);
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>>   static struct irq_chip pl061_irqchip = {
> >>>          .name           = "pl061",
> >>>          .irq_ack        = pl061_irq_ack,
> >>>          .irq_mask       = pl061_irq_mask,
> >>>          .irq_unmask     = pl061_irq_unmask,
> >>>          .irq_set_type   = pl061_irq_type,
> >>> +       .irq_set_wake   = pl061_irq_set_wake,
> >>>   };
> >>
> >>
> >> Is this really all that is needed? Don't you need to call
> >> device_wakeup_enable(&adev->dev, 1); on the amba (primecell)
> >> device providing this GPIO, lest it may be suspended itself
> >> and render this exercise pointless.
> >>
> >
> > Do you mean something like :
> >
> >
> > -->8--
> >
> > diff --git i/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c w/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c
> > index 4d4b37676702..467e0b278cf0 100644
> > --- i/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c
> > +++ w/drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c
> > @@ -354,6 +354,7 @@ static int pl061_probe(struct amba_device *adev, const
> > struct amba_id *id)
> >         }
> >
> >         amba_set_drvdata(adev, chip);
> > +       dev_pm_set_wake_irq(&adev->dev, irq);
> 
> I don't really know :(
> 
> I was under the impression that we may need *both*, because if
> the GPIO line is wakeup-capable, the wakeup event will not be
> detected unless the GPIO controller is also online, simply.

I would think that the GPIO controller wouldn't be suspended in that case
and that its driver would decide.  So, it would return 0 from its system
suspend callbacks, but wouldn't actually suspend the device.

Of course, this means that its parent might need to do the same and
so on.

We don't really have a common way for handling that in the PM core.

Thanks,
Rafael

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web