Re: Lack of suspend/resume/shutdown ordering between GPIO providers and consumers
From: Florian Fainelli
Date: Wed Apr 25 2018 - 14:30:05 EST
On 04/25/2018 11:06 AM, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> On 04/24/2018 05:58 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> Hi Linus, Rafael, all
>> Our GPIO controller driver: gpio-brcmstb.c has a shutdown callback which
>> gets invoked when the system is brought into poweroff aka S5. So far so
>> good, except that we also wish to use gpio_keys.c as a possible wake-up
>> source, so we may have a number of GPIO pins declared as gpio-keys that
>> allow the system to wake-up from deep slumber.
>> Recently we noticed that we could easily get into a state where
>> gpio-brcmstb.c::brcmstb_gpio_shutdown() gets called first, and then
>> gpio_keys.c::gpio_keys_suspend() gets called later, which is too late to
>> have the enable_irq_wake() call do anything sensible since we have
>> suspend its parent interrupt controller before. This is completely
>> expected unfortunately because these two drivers are both platform
>> device instances with no connection to one another except via Device
>> Tree and the use of the GPIOLIB APIs.
> You can take a look at device_link_add() and Co.
OK, though that requires a struct device references, so while I could
certainly resolve the device_node -> struct device that corresponds to
the GPIO provider , that poses a number of issues:
- not all struct device_node have a corresponding struct device
reference (e.g: clock providers, interrupt controllers, and possibly
other custom drivers), though in this case, they most likely do have one
- resolving a struct device associated with a struct device_node is
often done in a "bus" specific way, e.g: of_find_device_by_node(), so if
the GPIO provider is e.g: i2c_device, pci_device etc. etc. this might
not work that easily
I think this is what Dmitry just indicated in his email as well.
> But it's little bit unclear what exactly you have issue with:
> - shutdown
> - suspend
> above are different (at least as it was before) and gpio-brcmstb.c
> Âbrcmstb_gpio_shutdown() should not be called as part of suspend !?
> may be you mean brcmstb_gpio_suspend?
The issue exists with shutdown (through the use of "poweroff"), that is
confirmed, but I cannot see how it does not exist with any suspend state
as well, for the same reason that the ordering is not strictly enforced.