On Wed, 2024-02-28 at 11:34 +0530, Dhruva Gole wrote:
External email : Please do not click links or open attachments until
you have verified the sender or the content.
Hi,
On 28/02/24 07:30, Qingliang Li wrote:
When driver registers the wake irq with reverse enable ordering,triggering
the wake irq will be re-enabled when entering system suspend,
an 'Unbalanced enable for IRQ xxx' warning. The wake irq will bedev_pm_arm_wake_irq()
enabled in both dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete() and
WAKE_IRQ_DEDICATED_ENABLED flag
To fix this issue, complete the setting of
in dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete() to avoid redundant irqenablement.
Just trying to understand, why not in dev_pm_arm_wake_irq ?
Is it cuz it's called much after dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete ?
Not sure what's the exact call order, but I am assuming
dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete is more of a runtime thing and
dev_pm_arm_wake_irq happens finally at system suspend?
You are right, the involvement of 'dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete' is
due to the driver selecting 'pm_runtime_force_suspend' as the callback
function for system suspend. In this scenario, the call sequence during
system suspend is as follows:
dpm_suspend_start -> dpm_run_callback -> pm_runtime_force_suspend ->
dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_check/complete
suspend_enter -> dpm_suspend_noirq -> dev_pm_arm_wake_irq
Based on the above, if the driver (i) chooses pm_runtime_force_suspend
as the system suspend callback function and (ii) registers wake irq
with reverse enable ordering, the wake irq will be enabled twice during
system suspend.
Fixes: 8527beb12087 ("PM: sleep: wakeirq: fix wake irq arming")
Signed-off-by: Qingliang Li <qingliang.li@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
$subject: Most recent convention used for this file is:
"PM: sleep: wakeirq: ..."
I'm sorry, but what is the problem with the description of the "Fixed"
field? I didn't get your point and I wrote it according to the previous
patches.