Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] irqchip: Add DT binding doc for the virtual irq demuxer chip

[Mark Rutland]

> > * The pmc looks like it could be a valid use of the new flag. It also
> >   seems to function as an irqchip.
> >   
> >   Do any of its child IRQs need to be handled during the suspend-resume
> >   cycle? If so using IRQF_NO_SUSPEND would seem to be valid.
> 
> No they don't, they are used for clock activation only, and thus should
> be disabled on suspend.

Ok. So the IRQF_SHARED_TIMER_OK flag would make sense here.

> > * atmel_serial seems to be intended to be used as a wakeup device (given
> >   it calls device_set_wakeup_enable). Therefore it needs to call
> >   enable_irq_wake, and when it does so it can share an IRQ with other
> >   interrupts, just not IRQF_NO_SUSPEND interrupts.
> 
> I'll have a look, but AFAIR serial core already taking care of that.
> 
> >   
> >   None of the approaches thus far can fix the fundamental mismatch
> >   between wakeup interrupts and IRQF_NO_SUSPEND interrupts.
> > 
> > * Similarly, rtc-at91rm9200 and rtc-at91sam9 are intended to be used as 
> >   wakeup devices. They call enable_irq_wake (though don't bother
> >   checking the return value). They can share an IRQ with other
> >   interrupts, just not IRQF_NO_SUSPEND interrupts.
> 
> Yep.
> 
> > 
> > * at91sam9_wdt seems to be fundamentally incompatible with suspend. If
> >   the watchdog cannot be disabled, and you need to handle it during
> >   suspend, then it needs to be a wakeup interrupt, not an
> >   IRQF_NO_SUSPEND interrupt.

If they're not shared with an IRQF_NO_SUSPEND IRQ, then everything is
already OK. If they are shared with an IRQF_NO_SUSPEND IRQ, then the
fundamental problem is not solved by any approach so far.

> You forgot the PIT timer, which is the one in cause here (no other
> drivers are specifying this IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag), and, as you already
> know, a timer sets the IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag.
>
> > As far as I can see, the flag or virtual irqchip approaches only help
> > the PMC case, and even then might not be necessary. All the others seem
> > to be relying on guarantees the genirq layer don't provide, and fixing
> > that would mean moving them further from IRQF_NO_SUSPEND.
> 
> I don't know what you're trying to prove here, but I never said my goal
> was to set IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flags on existing at91 drivers ?
> The problem here, is that all those IPs are sharing the irq line with a
> timer which sets IRQF_NO_SUSPEND.

As Rafael and I described, sharing an IRQ between a wakeup device (the
serial, rtc, and wdt) and an IRQF_NO_SUSPEND device is broken. You have
the choice between losing wakeup events or masking timer events.

So those device above which operate as wakeup devices cannot share a
line with a timer.

> I just want to be able to share an irq line with a timer and other
> devices that do not set IRQF_NO_SUSPEND.
> Could we focus on that ?

I'm trying to focus on the cases we can actually salvage. 

An IRQ cannot be shared between a device with IRQF_NO_SUSPEND and a
device that wishes to operate as a wakeup device, because the semantics
don't align. One wishes to handle IRQs continuously and one wants to
abort suspend at the first IRQ (waiting until part-way through the
resume before handling it).

So those devices above which wish to operate as wakeup devices are
either irrelevant or unsalvageable with the current approaches.

The flag or demux chip only happens to mask the problem in the absence
of strict sanity checking.

If you want to be able to share the line then you will need to
fundamentally rework the way wakeup interrupts work in order to be able
to decide when you've encountered a real wakeup event.

Thanks,
Mark.
--
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/