Re: [PATCH 05/12] PCI: aardvark: add suspend to RAM support
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Date: 2018-12-03 19:19:26
Also in:
linux-devicetree, linux-pci, lkml
Quoting Lorenzo Pieralisi (2018-12-03 09:18:59)
[+Stephen, Mike] On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 04:38:46PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:quoted
Hi Lorenzo, Lorenzo Pieralisi [off-list ref] wrote on Mon, 3 Dec 2018 10:27:08 +0000:quoted
[+Rafael, Sudeep] On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 03:18:24PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:quoted
Add suspend and resume callbacks. The priority of these are "_noirq()", to workaround early access to the registers done by the PCI core through the ->read()/->write() callbacks at resume time. Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com> --- drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+)diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c index 108b3f15c410..7ecf1ac4036b 100644 --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c@@ -1108,6 +1108,55 @@ static int advk_pcie_setup_clk(struct advk_pcie *pcie) return ret; } +static int __maybe_unused advk_pcie_suspend(struct device *dev) +{ + struct advk_pcie *pcie = dev_get_drvdata(dev); + + advk_pcie_disable_phy(pcie); + + clk_disable_unprepare(pcie->clk);I have noticed it is common practice, still, I would like to check whether it is allowed to call functions that may sleep in a NOIRQ suspend/resume callback ?You are right this is weird. I double checked and for instance, pcie-mediatek.c, pci-tegra.c and pci-imx6.c do the exact same thing. There are probably other cases where drivers call functions that may sleep from a NOIRQ context. I am interested to know if this is valid and if not, what is the alternative?I added Stephen and Mike, who along with Rafael can help us shed some light into this, I do not have the necessary bits of info myself, I just noticed.
Is the noirq phase of system suspend run with irqs disabled? Or just run with the device irqs disabled? I thought it was the latter, which is fine for this scenario because it's still running in a schedulable context. _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel