| Message ID | 56616E74.9000604@ti.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Hi Grygorii, On 04/12/15 10:44, Grygorii Strashko wrote: > On 12/03/2015 11:37 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: [...] >> And these both need to be applied together when we have a fix for the >> above >> as otherwise we'll get the lock recursion Sudeep mentioned in patch 2/2. >> > > Most probably below diff will fix above issue: > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c > b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c > index 3fc2cbe..69cde67 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c > @@ -338,6 +338,7 @@ int omap_prcm_register_chain_handler(struct > omap_prcm_irq_setup *irq_setup) > ct->chip.irq_ack = irq_gc_ack_set_bit; > ct->chip.irq_mask = irq_gc_mask_clr_bit; > ct->chip.irq_unmask = irq_gc_mask_set_bit; > + ct->chip.flags = IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE; Thanks for testing. In that case without this hunk, we should get error from pcs_irq_set_wake in the suspend path. No ? May be driver is not checking the error value and entering suspend.
On 12/04/2015 12:54 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > Hi Grygorii, > > On 04/12/15 10:44, Grygorii Strashko wrote: >> On 12/03/2015 11:37 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > [...] > >>> And these both need to be applied together when we have a fix for the >>> above >>> as otherwise we'll get the lock recursion Sudeep mentioned in patch 2/2. >>> >> >> Most probably below diff will fix above issue: >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c >> b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c >> index 3fc2cbe..69cde67 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c >> @@ -338,6 +338,7 @@ int omap_prcm_register_chain_handler(struct >> omap_prcm_irq_setup *irq_setup) >> ct->chip.irq_ack = irq_gc_ack_set_bit; >> ct->chip.irq_mask = irq_gc_mask_clr_bit; >> ct->chip.irq_unmask = irq_gc_mask_set_bit; >> + ct->chip.flags = IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE; > > Thanks for testing. Sry, I've not tested it yet - it's just fast assumption :( In that case without this hunk, we should get error > from pcs_irq_set_wake in the suspend path. No ? May be driver is not > checking the error value and entering suspend. > Yep. Noone is checking return result from enable_irq_wake() in suspend path (see dev_pm_arm_wake_irq()). Actually, return result of enable_irq_wake() is checked only in ~30% of cases in kernel now :)
On 04/12/15 11:18, Grygorii Strashko wrote: > On 12/04/2015 12:54 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> Hi Grygorii, >> >> On 04/12/15 10:44, Grygorii Strashko wrote: >>> On 12/03/2015 11:37 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>>> And these both need to be applied together when we have a fix for the >>>> above >>>> as otherwise we'll get the lock recursion Sudeep mentioned in patch 2/2. >>>> >>> >>> Most probably below diff will fix above issue: >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c >>> b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c >>> index 3fc2cbe..69cde67 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c >>> @@ -338,6 +338,7 @@ int omap_prcm_register_chain_handler(struct >>> omap_prcm_irq_setup *irq_setup) >>> ct->chip.irq_ack = irq_gc_ack_set_bit; >>> ct->chip.irq_mask = irq_gc_mask_clr_bit; >>> ct->chip.irq_unmask = irq_gc_mask_set_bit; >>> + ct->chip.flags = IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE; >> >> Thanks for testing. > > Sry, I've not tested it yet - it's just fast assumption :( > OK, no worries. >> In that case without this hunk, we should get error >> from pcs_irq_set_wake in the suspend path. No ? May be driver is not >> checking the error value and entering suspend. >> > > Yep. Noone is checking return result from enable_irq_wake() in suspend path > (see dev_pm_arm_wake_irq()). > True, but one possible reason for the warning Tony posted. > Actually, return result of enable_irq_wake() is checked only in ~30% of > cases in kernel now :) > That's bad, but I admit that even I failed to add check in some of the patches I posted earlier.
* Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> [151204 02:45]: > On 12/03/2015 11:37 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > >* Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> [151203 10:36]: > >> > >>I think, this patch should not break our wake-up functionality. > >>It will just change the moment when pcs_irq_handler() will be called: > >> > >>before this change: > >>- suspend_enter() > >> .... > >> - arch_suspend_enable_irqs(); > >> - ^ right here > >> > >>after this change: > >>- suspend_enter() > >> .... > >> dpm_resume_noirq() > >> - resume_device_irqs() > >> ^ here > >> > >>Correct? And as for me this is more safe. > > > >I think there's more to it though. With both applied, it produces this on > >coming back up from suspend: > > > >PM: noirq resume of devices complete after 18.127 msecs > >------------[ cut here ]------------ > >WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 123 at kernel/irq/manage.c:605 irq_set_irq_wake+0xbc/0xfc() > >Unbalanced IRQ 375 wake disable > >Modules linked in: ledtrig_default_on leds_gpio led_class rtc_twl twl4030_wdt > >CPU: 0 PID: 123 Comm: bash Tainted: G W 4.4.0-rc3-dirty #2682 > >Hardware name: Generic OMAP36xx (Flattened Device Tree) > >[<c0017df0>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c0014084>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14) > ><c0014084>] (show_stack) from [<c03492d0>] (dump_stack+0x84/0x9c) > >[<c03492d0>] (dump_stack) from [<c003ca2c>] (warn_slowpath_common+0x7c/0xb8) > >[<c003ca2c>] (warn_slowpath_common) from [<c003ca98>] (warn_slowpath_fmt+0x30/0x40) > >[<c003ca98>] (warn_slowpath_fmt) from [<c009b66c>] (irq_set_irq_wake+0xbc/0xfc) > >[<c009b66c>] (irq_set_irq_wake) from [<c03f0f1c>] (device_wakeup_disarm_wake_irqs+0x70/0x12c) > >[<c03f0f1c>] (device_wakeup_disarm_wake_irqs) from [<c03ee4ac>] (dpm_resume_noirq+0x20c/0x2e4) > >[<c03ee4ac>] (dpm_resume_noirq) from [<c0095e94>] (suspend_devices_and_enter+0x1e4/0x6bc) > >[<c0095e94>] (suspend_devices_and_enter) from [<c00966c4>] (pm_suspend+0x358/0x4b8) > >[<c00966c4>] (pm_suspend) from [<c0094fdc>] (state_store+0x64/0xb8) > >[<c0094fdc>] (state_store) from [<c034b46c>] (kobj_attr_store+0x14/0x20) > >[<c034b46c>] (kobj_attr_store) from [<c01ea4d8>] (sysfs_kf_write+0x4c/0x50) > >[<c01ea4d8>] (sysfs_kf_write) from [<c01e9afc>] (kernfs_fop_write+0xbc/0x1cc) > >[<c01e9afc>] (kernfs_fop_write) from [<c0171c7c>] (__vfs_write+0x24/0xd8) > >[<c0171c7c>] (__vfs_write) from [<c0172520>] (vfs_write+0x94/0x154) > >[<c0172520>] (vfs_write) from [<c0172d1c>] (SyS_write+0x40/0x94) > >[<c0172d1c>] (SyS_write) from [<c000f760>] (ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x1c) > >---[ end trace 321b51565e161bee ]--- > > > >And these both need to be applied together when we have a fix for the above > >as otherwise we'll get the lock recursion Sudeep mentioned in patch 2/2. > > > > Most probably below diff will fix above issue: > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c > b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c > index 3fc2cbe..69cde67 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c > @@ -338,6 +338,7 @@ int omap_prcm_register_chain_handler(struct > omap_prcm_irq_setup *irq_setup) > ct->chip.irq_ack = irq_gc_ack_set_bit; > ct->chip.irq_mask = irq_gc_mask_clr_bit; > ct->chip.irq_unmask = irq_gc_mask_set_bit; > + ct->chip.flags = IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE; > > ct->regs.ack = irq_setup->ack + i * 4; > ct->regs.mask = irq_setup->mask + i * 4; > > That fixes the warning on resume, but adds a new one during init: ------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 1 at kernel/irq/pm.c:51 irq_pm_install_action+0x9c/0xec() Modules linked in: CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.4.0-rc3-00001-g6a5e5ec #2694 Hardware name: Generic OMAP36xx (Flattened Device Tree) [<c0017df0>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<c0014084>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14) [<c0014084>] (show_stack) from [<c03492f0>] (dump_stack+0x84/0x9c) [<c03492f0>] (dump_stack) from [<c003ca34>] (warn_slowpath_common+0x7c/0xb8) [<c003ca34>] (warn_slowpath_common) from [<c003cb0c>] (warn_slowpath_null+0x1c/0x24) [<c003cb0c>] (warn_slowpath_null) from [<c00a27d8>] (irq_pm_install_action+0x9c/0xec) [<c00a27d8>] (irq_pm_install_action) from [<c009ccb0>] (__setup_irq+0x434/0x5e0) [<c009ccb0>] (__setup_irq) from [<c009cfb0>] (request_threaded_irq+0xc4/0x15c) [<c009cfb0>] (request_threaded_irq) from [<c08c25e8>] (omap3_pm_init+0x10c/0x400) [<c08c25e8>] (omap3_pm_init) from [<c08bc66c>] (omap3_init_late+0xc/0x14) [<c08bc66c>] (omap3_init_late) from [<c08b5820>] (init_machine_late+0x1c/0x90) [<c08b5820>] (init_machine_late) from [<c0009804>] (do_one_initcall+0x80/0x1e0) [<c0009804>] (do_one_initcall) from [<c08b2ec4>] (kernel_init_freeable+0x218/0x2e8) [<c08b2ec4>] (kernel_init_freeable) from [<c064584c>] (kernel_init+0x8/0xec) [<c064584c>] (kernel_init) from [<c000f7f0>] (ret_from_fork+0x14/0x24) ---[ end trace 81093452bf564522 ]--- And then there's still at least one problem remaining with the original patch where togging the parent irq in pin specific irq pcs_irq_set_wake does not make sense. Will comment on that separately. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c index 3fc2cbe..69cde67 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c @@ -338,6 +338,7 @@ int omap_prcm_register_chain_handler(struct omap_prcm_irq_setup *irq_setup) ct->chip.irq_ack = irq_gc_ack_set_bit; ct->chip.irq_mask = irq_gc_mask_clr_bit; ct->chip.irq_unmask = irq_gc_mask_set_bit; + ct->chip.flags = IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE; ct->regs.ack = irq_setup->ack + i * 4;