Re: [PATCH] PM / wakeirq: report wakeup events in dedicated wake-IRQs

[Tony Lindgren]

* Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> [161111 14:29]:
> * Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> [161111 13:33]:
> > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > * Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> [161110 16:06]:
> > >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 7:49 PM, Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:13:55AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > >> >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >> >> > It's important that user space can figure out what device woke the
> > >> >> > system from suspend -- e.g., for debugging, or for implementing
> > >> >> > conditional wake behavior. Dedicated wakeup IRQs don't currently do
> > >> >> > that.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Let's report the event (pm_wakeup_event()) and also allow drivers to
> > >> >> > synchronize with these events in their resume path (hence, disable_irq()
> > >> >> > instead of disable_irq_nosync()).
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Hmm, dev_pm_disable_wake_irq() is called from
> > >> >> rpm_suspend()/rpm_resume() that take dev->power.lock spinlock and
> > >> >> disable interrupts. Dropping _nosync() feels dangerous.
> > >> >
> > >> > Indeed. So how do you suggest we get sane wakeup reports? Every device
> > >> > or bus that's going to use the dedicated wake APIs has to
> > >> > synchronize_irq() [1] in their resume() routine? Seems like an odd
> > >> > implementation detail to have to remember (and therefore most drivers
> > >> > will get it wrong).
> > >> >
> > >> > Brian
> > >> >
> > >> > [1] Or maybe at least create a helper API that will extract the
> > >> > dedicated wake IRQ number and do the synchronize_irq() for us, so
> > >> > drivers don't have to stash this separately (or poke at
> > >> > dev->power.wakeirq->irq) for no good reason.
> > >>
> > >> Well, in the first place, can anyone please refresh my memory on why
> > >> it is necessary to call dev_pm_disable_wake_irq() under power.lock?
> > >
> > > I guess no other reason except we need to manage the wakeirq
> > > for rpm_callback(). So we dev_pm_enable_wake_irq() before
> > > rpm_callback() in rpm_suspend(), then disable on resume.
> > 
> > But we drop the lock in rpm_callback(), so can't it be moved to where
> > the callback is invoked?
> 
> Then we're back to patching all the drivers again, no?

Sorry I misunderstood, yeah that should work if rpm_callback() drops
the lock.

Somehow I remembered we're calling the consumer callback function
directly :)

Regards,

Tony