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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1614618 > unrolled thread

[PATCH v2] input: cros_ec_keyb: Report wakeup events

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

  [PATCH v2] input: cros_ec_keyb: Report wakeup events Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com> - 2017-04-02 02:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2] input: cros_ec_keyb: Report wakeup events Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-03 20:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2] input: cros_ec_keyb: Report wakeup events Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> - 2017-04-03 23:00 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v2] input: cros_ec_keyb: Report wakeup events Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 00:50 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v2] input: cros_ec_keyb: Report wakeup events jeffy <jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com> - 2017-04-05 03:30 +0200

#1614618 — [PATCH v2] input: cros_ec_keyb: Report wakeup events

Report wakeup events when process events.

Signed-off-by: Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com>
---

Changes in v2:
Remove unneeded dts changes.

 drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c | 9 +++++++++
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c b/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c
index 6a250d6..a93d55f 100644
--- a/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c
+++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c
@@ -286,6 +286,9 @@ static int cros_ec_keyb_work(struct notifier_block *nb,
 		return NOTIFY_DONE;
 	}
 
+	if (device_may_wakeup(ckdev->dev))
+		pm_wakeup_event(ckdev->dev, 0);
+
 	return NOTIFY_OK;
 }
 
@@ -632,6 +635,12 @@ static int cros_ec_keyb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 		return err;
 	}
 
+	err = device_init_wakeup(dev, 1);
+	if (err) {
+		dev_err(dev, "cannot init wakeup: %d\n", err);
+		return err;
+	}
+
 	return 0;
 }
 
-- 
2.1.4

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1615472

On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 08:07:39AM +0800, Jeffy Chen wrote:
> Report wakeup events when process events.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com>
> ---
> 
> Changes in v2:
> Remove unneeded dts changes.
> 
>  drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c | 9 +++++++++
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c b/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c
> index 6a250d6..a93d55f 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c
> @@ -286,6 +286,9 @@ static int cros_ec_keyb_work(struct notifier_block *nb,
>  		return NOTIFY_DONE;
>  	}
>  
> +	if (device_may_wakeup(ckdev->dev))
> +		pm_wakeup_event(ckdev->dev, 0);
> +
>  	return NOTIFY_OK;
>  }
>  
> @@ -632,6 +635,12 @@ static int cros_ec_keyb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  		return err;
>  	}
>  
> +	err = device_init_wakeup(dev, 1);

I would prefer if we did not mark cros_ec devices as wakeup sources
unconditionally. Your original patch series was better (except it failed
to parse the "wakeup-source" property that you introduced.

> +	if (err) {
> +		dev_err(dev, "cannot init wakeup: %d\n", err);
> +		return err;
> +	}
> +
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -- 
> 2.1.4
> 
> 

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry

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

#1615553

+ others

On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:43:36AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 08:07:39AM +0800, Jeffy Chen wrote:
> > Report wakeup events when process events.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > Changes in v2:
> > Remove unneeded dts changes.
> > 
> >  drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c | 9 +++++++++
> >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c b/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c
> > index 6a250d6..a93d55f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c
> > +++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c
> > @@ -286,6 +286,9 @@ static int cros_ec_keyb_work(struct notifier_block *nb,
> >  		return NOTIFY_DONE;
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	if (device_may_wakeup(ckdev->dev))
> > +		pm_wakeup_event(ckdev->dev, 0);
> > +
> >  	return NOTIFY_OK;
> >  }
> >  
> > @@ -632,6 +635,12 @@ static int cros_ec_keyb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  		return err;
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	err = device_init_wakeup(dev, 1);
> 
> I would prefer if we did not mark cros_ec devices as wakeup sources
> unconditionally. Your original patch series was better (except it failed
> to parse the "wakeup-source" property that you introduced.

I'm curious, why is this keyboard device different than any other keyboard
device? I see several other drivers in drivers/input/keyboard/ that do an
unconditional 'device_init_wakeup(..., 1)'. Keyboards tend to be wakeup
devices...

Also, what's the idea behind sub-devices vs. the main cros-ec device reporting
wakeups? Right now, we have this in drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c:

static irqreturn_t ec_irq_thread(int irq, void *data)
{
        struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev = data;
        int ret;

        if (device_may_wakeup(ec_dev->dev))
                pm_wakeup_event(ec_dev->dev, 0);

        ret = cros_ec_get_next_event(ec_dev);
        if (ret > 0)
                blocking_notifier_call_chain(&ec_dev->event_notifier,
                                             0, ec_dev);
        return IRQ_HANDLED;
}

But now, we're going to start double-reporting wakeups? Is that
expected?

I think we have a similar overlap with the RTC driver (which is being
upstreamed now?):

https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/14/658
[PATCH v3 3/4] rtc: cros-ec: add cros-ec-rtc driver.

except that also goes through the trouble of enabling/disabling wakeup for the
EC IRQ. It seems to me (though I haven't dug in thoroughly) like the
main MFD shouldn't really be doing the wakeup reporting at all, and we
should depend on the sub-devices to do this. (i.e., the current patchset
is a step in the right direction, but it's not 100%.)

Anyway, I could be wrong about the above, but I think we should make
sure there's a consistent answer across the drivers tree.

Regards,
Brian

> > +	if (err) {
> > +		dev_err(dev, "cannot init wakeup: %d\n", err);
> > +		return err;
> > +	}
> > +
> >  	return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > -- 
> > 2.1.4
> > 
> > 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> Dmitry

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

#1615599

On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 01:53:53PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> + others
> 
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:43:36AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 08:07:39AM +0800, Jeffy Chen wrote:
> > > Report wakeup events when process events.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > Changes in v2:
> > > Remove unneeded dts changes.
> > > 
> > >  drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c | 9 +++++++++
> > >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c b/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c
> > > index 6a250d6..a93d55f 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c
> > > @@ -286,6 +286,9 @@ static int cros_ec_keyb_work(struct notifier_block *nb,
> > >  		return NOTIFY_DONE;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > +	if (device_may_wakeup(ckdev->dev))
> > > +		pm_wakeup_event(ckdev->dev, 0);
> > > +
> > >  	return NOTIFY_OK;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > @@ -632,6 +635,12 @@ static int cros_ec_keyb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > >  		return err;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > +	err = device_init_wakeup(dev, 1);
> > 
> > I would prefer if we did not mark cros_ec devices as wakeup sources
> > unconditionally. Your original patch series was better (except it failed
> > to parse the "wakeup-source" property that you introduced.
> 
> I'm curious, why is this keyboard device different than any other keyboard
> device? I see several other drivers in drivers/input/keyboard/ that do an
> unconditional 'device_init_wakeup(..., 1)'. Keyboards tend to be wakeup
> devices...

If we did something before it does not mean we should continue doing
this forever. I think providing an option to mark device as wakeup
capable should be left to the platform.

> 
> Also, what's the idea behind sub-devices vs. the main cros-ec device reporting
> wakeups? Right now, we have this in drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c:
> 
> static irqreturn_t ec_irq_thread(int irq, void *data)
> {
>         struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev = data;
>         int ret;
> 
>         if (device_may_wakeup(ec_dev->dev))
>                 pm_wakeup_event(ec_dev->dev, 0);
> 
>         ret = cros_ec_get_next_event(ec_dev);
>         if (ret > 0)
>                 blocking_notifier_call_chain(&ec_dev->event_notifier,
>                                              0, ec_dev);
>         return IRQ_HANDLED;
> }
> 
> But now, we're going to start double-reporting wakeups? Is that
> expected?

No, and not always (below).

> 
> I think we have a similar overlap with the RTC driver (which is being
> upstreamed now?):
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/14/658
> [PATCH v3 3/4] rtc: cros-ec: add cros-ec-rtc driver.
> 
> except that also goes through the trouble of enabling/disabling wakeup for the
> EC IRQ. It seems to me (though I haven't dug in thoroughly) like the
> main MFD shouldn't really be doing the wakeup reporting at all, and we
> should depend on the sub-devices to do this. (i.e., the current patchset
> is a step in the right direction, but it's not 100%.)
> 
> Anyway, I could be wrong about the above, but I think we should make
> sure there's a consistent answer across the drivers tree.

Hm, it appears we have quite a mess. SPI-based EC declares entire EC as
wakeup source (unconditionally I must add; we do mention "wakeup-source"
in binding document at least). I2C-based EC does not call
device_init_wakeup() at all, presumably that is what caused the calls to
be added into sub-drivers.

We need to resolve this one way or another. You probably do not want to
wake up any time you move your device (accelerometer or other sensors),
so I would try to move this property into individual devices, and try to
come up with a reasonable binding.

Thanks.

-- 
Dmitry

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

#1616495

Hi dmitry,

On 04/04/2017 06:41 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 01:53:53PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
>> + others
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:43:36AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>>> On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 08:07:39AM +0800, Jeffy Chen wrote:
>>>> Report wakeup events when process events.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@rock-chips.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> Changes in v2:
>>>> Remove unneeded dts changes.
>>>>
>>>>   drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c | 9 +++++++++
>>>>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c b/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c
>>>> index 6a250d6..a93d55f 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c
>>>> @@ -286,6 +286,9 @@ static int cros_ec_keyb_work(struct notifier_block *nb,
>>>>   		return NOTIFY_DONE;
>>>>   	}
>>>>
>>>> +	if (device_may_wakeup(ckdev->dev))
>>>> +		pm_wakeup_event(ckdev->dev, 0);
>>>> +
>>>>   	return NOTIFY_OK;
>>>>   }
>>>>
>>>> @@ -632,6 +635,12 @@ static int cros_ec_keyb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>>   		return err;
>>>>   	}
>>>>
>>>> +	err = device_init_wakeup(dev, 1);
>>>
>>> I would prefer if we did not mark cros_ec devices as wakeup sources
>>> unconditionally. Your original patch series was better (except it failed
>>> to parse the "wakeup-source" property that you introduced.
>>
>> I'm curious, why is this keyboard device different than any other keyboard
>> device? I see several other drivers in drivers/input/keyboard/ that do an
>> unconditional 'device_init_wakeup(..., 1)'. Keyboards tend to be wakeup
>> devices...
>
> If we did something before it does not mean we should continue doing
> this forever. I think providing an option to mark device as wakeup
> capable should be left to the platform.
>
>>
>> Also, what's the idea behind sub-devices vs. the main cros-ec device reporting
>> wakeups? Right now, we have this in drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c:
>>
>> static irqreturn_t ec_irq_thread(int irq, void *data)
>> {
>>          struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev = data;
>>          int ret;
>>
>>          if (device_may_wakeup(ec_dev->dev))
>>                  pm_wakeup_event(ec_dev->dev, 0);
>>
>>          ret = cros_ec_get_next_event(ec_dev);
>>          if (ret > 0)
>>                  blocking_notifier_call_chain(&ec_dev->event_notifier,
>>                                               0, ec_dev);
>>          return IRQ_HANDLED;
>> }
>>
>> But now, we're going to start double-reporting wakeups? Is that
>> expected?
>
> No, and not always (below).
>
>>
>> I think we have a similar overlap with the RTC driver (which is being
>> upstreamed now?):
>>
>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/14/658
>> [PATCH v3 3/4] rtc: cros-ec: add cros-ec-rtc driver.
>>
>> except that also goes through the trouble of enabling/disabling wakeup for the
>> EC IRQ. It seems to me (though I haven't dug in thoroughly) like the
>> main MFD shouldn't really be doing the wakeup reporting at all, and we
>> should depend on the sub-devices to do this. (i.e., the current patchset
>> is a step in the right direction, but it's not 100%.)
>>
>> Anyway, I could be wrong about the above, but I think we should make
>> sure there's a consistent answer across the drivers tree.
>
> Hm, it appears we have quite a mess. SPI-based EC declares entire EC as
> wakeup source (unconditionally I must add; we do mention "wakeup-source"
> in binding document at least). I2C-based EC does not call
> device_init_wakeup() at all, presumably that is what caused the calls to
> be added into sub-drivers.
>
> We need to resolve this one way or another. You probably do not want to
> wake up any time you move your device (accelerometer or other sensors),
> so I would try to move this property into individual devices, and try to
> come up with a reasonable binding.
right, we do have a issue about gyro sensor break 
suspend(https://partnerissuetracker.corp.google.com/issues/36705709)

it would be better if we move wakeup codes to sub drivers. and if you do 
this, it would also solve the original issue of this patchset ;)
>
> Thanks.
>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web