Re: [PATCH 1/1] extcon: gpio: Add power resume support

[Barry Song]

2013/12/23 Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On 12/23/2013 05:13 PM, Barry Song wrote:
>> 2013/12/23 Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> On 12/23/2013 04:36 PM, Barry Song wrote:
>>>> 2013/12/23 Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>> On 12/23/2013 03:10 PM, Barry Song wrote:
>>>>>> 2013/12/23 Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>>>> On 12/20/2013 05:09 PM, rjying wrote:
>>>>>>>> From: Rongjun Ying <rongjun.ying@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After system resume, need send extcon uevent to userspace
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why did extcon send uevent after wakeup from suspend?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If extcon cable is attatched or detached on suspend state,
>>>>>>> Kernel can detect the interrupt about changed state of extcon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> irq controller has lost power in suspend, so there is no pending interrupt.
>>>>>> and HW will not pend any interrupt when we hotplug cable during sleep.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, SoC in suspend state must maintain the minimum power under 1mA
>>>>> if completed the power-optimization on suspend state.
>>>>>
>>>>> If user insert USB cable to target, the external interrupt connected to
>>>>> USB port is happened. And kernel would be waked up from suspend state
>>>>> to operate proper interrupt handler of external interrupt.
>>>>
>>>> no. not every USB supports that. that depends on the power domain design of SoC.
>>>
>>> USB is only example for gpio control in suspend state.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also,
>>>>> Input subsystem used gpio-keys driver for power button..
>>>>> If user press power button in suspend state, target would be waked up from suspend state.
>>>>> It is same case both extcon gpio and gpio-keys of input subsystem.
>>>>
>>>> no. it depends on the SoC design. many SoC only support 1 special key
>>>> which can work as ON-KEY as wakeup source. and this kind of keys might
>>>> not be GPIO at all.
>>>> there is a special power domain which is still open for it.
>>>
>>> many SoC?
>>>
>>> As I knew, most SoC has supported various wakeup source.
>>> As you comment, if specific SoC support only one special key
>>> for wakeup from suspend state, I think it isn't common.
>>>
>>> Also,
>>> This patch isn't necessary on SoCs which support various wakeup source (e.g., external interrupt).
>>> As you comment, this issue has dependecy on specific SoC. Why did you think this common code?
>>
>> i am not thinking this patch must be common codes but i think the
>> extcon should provide common codes to support all chips. that is what
>> a framework should consider.
>>
>> if there is no this or things similar with this, how could extcon
>> support the chips which don't support receiving sleep gpio interrupts?
>
> Sure, subsystem should support all cases related to this issue.
>
> I'd like to send common patch to support all cases as we discussed.
> If some patch support all case, I would review and apply it.
well. agree.

then, will you give comments about how to make this one common?
will it be useful to differentiate two different kinds of chips and
branch to two different code paths?

>
> Chanwoo Choi
>
>

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