Re: Lack of suspend/resume/shutdown ordering between GPIO providers and consumers
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
Date: 2018-04-25 18:58:11
Also in:
linux-devicetree, lkml
On 04/25/2018 11:47 AM, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
On 04/25/2018 01:29 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:quoted
On 04/25/2018 11:06 AM, Grygorii Strashko wrote:quoted
On 04/24/2018 05:58 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:quoted
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.quoted
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 brcmstb_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.Sry, but it still required some clarification :( - poweroff calls device_shutdown() which, in turn, should not call .suspend(), so how have you got both .shutdown() and .suspend() callbacks called during poweroff? Am I missing smth?
You are missing me telling you the whole story, sorry I got confused, but you are absolutely right these are separate lists and on poweroff/shutdown only ->shutdown() is called. What I had missed in the report I was submitted was that there was a .shutdown() callback being added to gpio_keys.c, which of course, because it's an Android based project is not in the upstream Linux kernel. The problem does remain valid though AFAICT. Thanks Grygorii! -- Florian