| Message ID | 1597058460-16211-4-git-send-email-mkshah@codeaurora.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | irqchip: qcom: pdc: Introduce irq_set_wake call | expand |
Hi, On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 4:21 AM Maulik Shah <mkshah@codeaurora.org> wrote: > > From: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > > The "struct irq_chip" has two callbacks in it: irq_suspend() and > irq_resume(). These two callbacks are interesting because sometimes > an irq chip needs to know about suspend/resume, but they are a bit > awkward because: > 1. They are called once for the whole irq_chip, not once per IRQ. > It's passed data for one of the IRQs enabled on that chip. That > means it's up to the irq_chip driver to aggregate. > 2. They are only called if you're using "generic-chip", which not > everyone is. > 3. The implementation uses syscore ops, which apparently have problems > with s2idle. > > Probably the old irq_suspend() and irq_resume() callbacks should be > deprecated. > > Let's introcuce a nicer API that works for all irq_chip devices. This You grabbed my patch (which is great, thanks!) but forgot to address Stephen's early feedback from <https://crrev.com/c/2321123>. Specifically: s/introcuce/introduce > --- a/include/linux/irq.h > +++ b/include/linux/irq.h > @@ -468,10 +468,16 @@ static inline irq_hw_number_t irqd_to_hwirq(struct irq_data *d) > * @irq_bus_sync_unlock:function to sync and unlock slow bus (i2c) chips > * @irq_cpu_online: configure an interrupt source for a secondary CPU > * @irq_cpu_offline: un-configure an interrupt source for a secondary CPU > + * @irq_suspend_one: called on an every irq to suspend it; called even if > + * this IRQ is configured for wakeup s/called on an/called on > + * @irq_resume_one: called on an every irq to resume it; called even if > + * this IRQ is configured for wakeup s/called on an/called on -Doug
Hi, Sure, i will take care these comments in v5. Thanks, Maulik On 8/12/2020 1:39 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 4:21 AM Maulik Shah <mkshah@codeaurora.org> wrote: >> From: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> >> >> The "struct irq_chip" has two callbacks in it: irq_suspend() and >> irq_resume(). These two callbacks are interesting because sometimes >> an irq chip needs to know about suspend/resume, but they are a bit >> awkward because: >> 1. They are called once for the whole irq_chip, not once per IRQ. >> It's passed data for one of the IRQs enabled on that chip. That >> means it's up to the irq_chip driver to aggregate. >> 2. They are only called if you're using "generic-chip", which not >> everyone is. >> 3. The implementation uses syscore ops, which apparently have problems >> with s2idle. >> >> Probably the old irq_suspend() and irq_resume() callbacks should be >> deprecated. >> >> Let's introcuce a nicer API that works for all irq_chip devices. This > You grabbed my patch (which is great, thanks!) but forgot to address > Stephen's early feedback from <https://crrev.com/c/2321123>. > Specifically: > > s/introcuce/introduce > > >> --- a/include/linux/irq.h >> +++ b/include/linux/irq.h >> @@ -468,10 +468,16 @@ static inline irq_hw_number_t irqd_to_hwirq(struct irq_data *d) >> * @irq_bus_sync_unlock:function to sync and unlock slow bus (i2c) chips >> * @irq_cpu_online: configure an interrupt source for a secondary CPU >> * @irq_cpu_offline: un-configure an interrupt source for a secondary CPU >> + * @irq_suspend_one: called on an every irq to suspend it; called even if >> + * this IRQ is configured for wakeup > s/called on an/called on > >> + * @irq_resume_one: called on an every irq to resume it; called even if >> + * this IRQ is configured for wakeup > s/called on an/called on > > > -Doug
Maulik Shah <mkshah@codeaurora.org> writes: > From: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > > The "struct irq_chip" has two callbacks in it: irq_suspend() and > irq_resume(). These two callbacks are interesting because sometimes > an irq chip needs to know about suspend/resume, but they are a bit > awkward because: > 1. They are called once for the whole irq_chip, not once per IRQ. > It's passed data for one of the IRQs enabled on that chip. That > means it's up to the irq_chip driver to aggregate. > 2. They are only called if you're using "generic-chip", which not > everyone is. > 3. The implementation uses syscore ops, which apparently have problems > with s2idle. The main point is that these callbacks are specific to generic chip and not used anywhere else. > Probably the old irq_suspend() and irq_resume() callbacks should be > deprecated. You need to analyze first what these callbacks actually do. :) > Let's introcuce a nicer API that works for all irq_chip devices. s/Let's intro/Intro/ Let's is pretty useless in a changelog especially if you read it some time after the patch got applied. > This will be called by the core and is called once per IRQ. The core > will call the suspend callback after doing its normal suspend > operations and the resume before its normal resume operations. Will be? You are adding the code which calls that unconditionally even. > +void suspend_one_irq(struct irq_desc *desc) > +{ > + struct irq_chip *chip = desc->irq_data.chip; > + > + if (chip->irq_suspend_one) > + chip->irq_suspend_one(&desc->irq_data); > +} > + > +void resume_one_irq(struct irq_desc *desc) > +{ > + struct irq_chip *chip = desc->irq_data.chip; > + > + if (chip->irq_resume_one) > + chip->irq_resume_one(&desc->irq_data); > +} There not much of a point to have these in chip.c. The functionality is clearly pm.c only. > static bool suspend_device_irq(struct irq_desc *desc) > { > + bool sync = false; > + > if (!desc->action || irq_desc_is_chained(desc) || > desc->no_suspend_depth) > - return false; > + goto exit; What? If no_suspend_depth is > 0 why would you try to tell the irq chip that this line needs to be suspended? If there is no action, then the interrupt line is in shut down state. What's the point of suspending it? Chained interrupts are special and you really have to think hard whether calling suspend for them unconditionally is a good idea. What if a wakeup irq is connected to this chained thing? > if (irqd_is_wakeup_set(&desc->irq_data)) { > irqd_set(&desc->irq_data, IRQD_WAKEUP_ARMED); > + > /* > * We return true here to force the caller to issue > * synchronize_irq(). We need to make sure that the > * IRQD_WAKEUP_ARMED is visible before we return from > * suspend_device_irqs(). > */ > - return true; > + sync = true; > + goto exit; So again. This interrupt is a wakeup source. What's the point of suspending it unconditionally. > } > > desc->istate |= IRQS_SUSPENDED; > @@ -95,7 +99,10 @@ static bool suspend_device_irq(struct irq_desc *desc) > */ > if (irq_desc_get_chip(desc)->flags & IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND) > mask_irq(desc); > - return true; > + > +exit: > + suspend_one_irq(desc); > + return sync; So what happens in this case: CPU0 CPU1 interrupt suspend_device_irq() handle() chip->suspend_one() action() ... chip->fiddle(); ???? What is the logic here and how is this going to work under all circumstances without having magic hacks in the irq chip to handle all the corner cases? This needs way more thoughts vs. the various states and sync requirements. Just adding callbacks, invoking them unconditionally, not giving any rationale how the whole thing is supposed to work and then let everyone figure out how to deal with the state and corner case handling at the irq chip driver level does not cut it, really. State handling is core functionality and if irq chip drivers have special requirements then they want to be communicated with flags and/or specialized callbacks. Thanks, tglx
Hi, On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 2:29 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > > Maulik Shah <mkshah@codeaurora.org> writes: > > From: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > > > > The "struct irq_chip" has two callbacks in it: irq_suspend() and > > irq_resume(). These two callbacks are interesting because sometimes > > an irq chip needs to know about suspend/resume, but they are a bit > > awkward because: > > 1. They are called once for the whole irq_chip, not once per IRQ. > > It's passed data for one of the IRQs enabled on that chip. That > > means it's up to the irq_chip driver to aggregate. > > 2. They are only called if you're using "generic-chip", which not > > everyone is. > > 3. The implementation uses syscore ops, which apparently have problems > > with s2idle. > > The main point is that these callbacks are specific to generic chip and > not used anywhere else. I'm not sure I understand. This callback is used by drivers that use generic-chip but I don't think there's anything specific about generic-chip in these callbacks. Sure many of them use the generic-chip's "wake_active" tracking but a different IRQ chip could track "wake_active" itself without bringing in all of generic-chip and still might want to accomplish the same thing, right? > > Probably the old irq_suspend() and irq_resume() callbacks should be > > deprecated. > > You need to analyze first what these callbacks actually do. :) See below. I intended my callbacks to be for the same type of thing as the existing ones, though perhaps either my naming or description was confusing. > > Let's introcuce a nicer API that works for all irq_chip devices. > > s/Let's intro/Intro/ > > Let's is pretty useless in a changelog especially if you read it some > time after the patch got applied. Sounds fine. Hopefully Maulik can adjust when he posts the next version. > > This will be called by the core and is called once per IRQ. The core > > will call the suspend callback after doing its normal suspend > > operations and the resume before its normal resume operations. > > Will be? You are adding the code which calls that unconditionally even. > > > +void suspend_one_irq(struct irq_desc *desc) > > +{ > > + struct irq_chip *chip = desc->irq_data.chip; > > + > > + if (chip->irq_suspend_one) > > + chip->irq_suspend_one(&desc->irq_data); > > +} > > + > > +void resume_one_irq(struct irq_desc *desc) > > +{ > > + struct irq_chip *chip = desc->irq_data.chip; > > + > > + if (chip->irq_resume_one) > > + chip->irq_resume_one(&desc->irq_data); > > +} > > There not much of a point to have these in chip.c. The functionality is > clearly pm.c only. No objections to it moving. Since Maulik is posting the patches, hopefully he can move it? > > static bool suspend_device_irq(struct irq_desc *desc) > > { > > + bool sync = false; > > + > > if (!desc->action || irq_desc_is_chained(desc) || > > desc->no_suspend_depth) > > - return false; > > + goto exit; > > What? > > If no_suspend_depth is > 0 why would you try to tell the irq chip > that this line needs to be suspended? > > If there is no action, then the interrupt line is in shut down > state. What's the point of suspending it? > > Chained interrupts are special and you really have to think hard whether > calling suspend for them unconditionally is a good idea. What if a > wakeup irq is connected to this chained thing? I think there is a confusion about what this callback is intended to do and that probably needs to be made clearer, either by renaming or by comments (or both). Let's think about these two things that we might be telling the IRQ: a) Please disable yourself in preparation for suspending. b) The system is suspending, please take any action you need to. I believe you are reading this as a). I intended it to be b). Can you think of a name for these callbacks that would make it clearer? suspend_notify() / resume_notify() maybe? Specifically the problem we're trying to address is when an IRQ is marked as "disabled" (driver called disable_irq()) but also marked as "wakeup" (driver called enable_irq_wake()). As per my understanding, this means: * Don't call the interrupt handler for this interrupt until I call enable_irq() but keep tracking it (either in hardware or in software). Specifically it's a requirement that if the interrupt fires one or more times while masked the interrupt handler should be called as soon as enable_irq() is called. * If this interrupt fires while the system is suspended then please wake the system up. On some (many?) interrupt controllers a masked interrupt won't wake the system up. Thus we need some point in time where the interrupt controller can unmask interrupts in hardware so that they can act as wakeups. Also: if an interrupt was masked lazily this could be a good time to ensure that these interrupts _won't_ wake the system up. Thus the point of these callbacks is to provide a hook for IRQ chips to do this. Now that you understand the motivation perhaps you can suggest a better way to accomplish this if the approach in this patch is not OK. I will note that a quick audit of existing users of the gernic-chip's irq_suspend() show that they are doing exactly this. So the point of my patch is to actually allow other IRQ chips (ones that aren't using generic-chip) to do this type of thing. At the same time my patch provides a way for current users of generic-chip to adapt their routines so they work without syscore (which, I guess, isn't compatible with s2idle). > > if (irqd_is_wakeup_set(&desc->irq_data)) { > > irqd_set(&desc->irq_data, IRQD_WAKEUP_ARMED); > > + > > /* > > * We return true here to force the caller to issue > > * synchronize_irq(). We need to make sure that the > > * IRQD_WAKEUP_ARMED is visible before we return from > > * suspend_device_irqs(). > > */ > > - return true; > > + sync = true; > > + goto exit; > > So again. This interrupt is a wakeup source. What's the point of > suspending it unconditionally. Again this is a confusion about whether I'm saying "please suspend yourself" or "the system is suspending, please take needed action". > > } > > > > desc->istate |= IRQS_SUSPENDED; > > @@ -95,7 +99,10 @@ static bool suspend_device_irq(struct irq_desc *desc) > > */ > > if (irq_desc_get_chip(desc)->flags & IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND) > > mask_irq(desc); > > - return true; > > + > > +exit: > > + suspend_one_irq(desc); > > + return sync; > > So what happens in this case: > > CPU0 CPU1 > interrupt suspend_device_irq() > handle() chip->suspend_one() > action() ... > chip->fiddle(); > > ???? Ah, so I guess we need to move the call to suspend_one_irq() till after the (potential) call to synchronize_irq() in in suspend_device_irqs()? > What is the logic here and how is this going to work under all > circumstances without having magic hacks in the irq chip to handle all > the corner cases? > > This needs way more thoughts vs. the various states and sync > requirements. Just adding callbacks, invoking them unconditionally, not > giving any rationale how the whole thing is supposed to work and then > let everyone figure out how to deal with the state and corner case > handling at the irq chip driver level does not cut it, really. > > State handling is core functionality and if irq chip drivers have > special requirements then they want to be communicated with flags and/or > specialized callbacks. Hopefully with the above explanation this makes more sense? If not, hopefully you can suggest how to adapt it to accomplish what we need (allow wakeup from masked IRQs that have wakeup enabled). Thanks! -Doug
Doug, On Thu, Aug 13 2020 at 09:09, Doug Anderson wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 2:29 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: >> The main point is that these callbacks are specific to generic chip and >> not used anywhere else. > > I'm not sure I understand. This callback is used by drivers that use > generic-chip but I don't think there's anything specific about > generic-chip in these callbacks. Sure many of them use the > generic-chip's "wake_active" tracking but a different IRQ chip could > track "wake_active" itself without bringing in all of generic-chip and > still might want to accomplish the same thing, right? They are not issued for non generic chip based irq chips and they are not issued from the common irq suspend/resume code. Wake active tracking is just a conveniance function and there is nothing which prevents any other driver to do that. The real question is why would it do so? The state is tracked in the core already. Don't tell me, I already read your whole reply :) >> > Probably the old irq_suspend() and irq_resume() callbacks should be >> > deprecated. >> >> You need to analyze first what these callbacks actually do. :) > > See below. I intended my callbacks to be for the same type of thing > as the existing ones, though perhaps either my naming or description > was confusing. IIRC the suspend/resume callbacks were added to get some existing SoC drivers converted over in a similar way to existing code, but my memory is faint. But I'm sure it wasn't a design from scratch and the semantics are rather obscure. But clearly because this was based on syscore ops this was never meant for S2idle which did not really exist back then. >> > static bool suspend_device_irq(struct irq_desc *desc) >> > { >> > + bool sync = false; >> > + >> > if (!desc->action || irq_desc_is_chained(desc) || >> > desc->no_suspend_depth) >> > - return false; >> > + goto exit; >> >> What? >> >> If no_suspend_depth is > 0 why would you try to tell the irq chip >> that this line needs to be suspended? >> >> If there is no action, then the interrupt line is in shut down >> state. What's the point of suspending it? >> >> Chained interrupts are special and you really have to think hard whether >> calling suspend for them unconditionally is a good idea. What if a >> wakeup irq is connected to this chained thing? > > I think there is a confusion about what this callback is intended to > do and that probably needs to be made clearer, either by renaming or > by comments (or both). Let's think about these two things that we > might be telling the IRQ: > > a) Please disable yourself in preparation for suspending. > > b) The system is suspending, please take any action you need to. > > I believe you are reading this as a). I intended it to be b). Can > you think of a name for these callbacks that would make it clearer? > suspend_notify() / resume_notify() maybe? I probably read is as #a, but even with #b the semantics are completely unclear. So I started asking questions. And these questions are important because if we really would add such a callback then it needs to be clear what semantics and rules are there for the driver side. If you don't specify that clearly then this is going to be (ab)used for implementing insanities which bring state out of sync and cause more problems than they solve. I still can remember that I had to cleanup tons of nasty irq chip driver code which did exactly that. I had to do that to be able to change the internals of the core code. Guess why the irq subsystem attempts to encapsulate as much as possible and has nasty struct member names all over the place. > Specifically the problem we're trying to address is when an IRQ is > marked as "disabled" (driver called disable_irq()) but also marked as > "wakeup" (driver called enable_irq_wake()). As per my understanding, > this means: > > * Don't call the interrupt handler for this interrupt until I call > enable_irq() but keep tracking it (either in hardware or in software). > Specifically it's a requirement that if the interrupt fires one or > more times while masked the interrupt handler should be called as soon > as enable_irq() is called. irq_disable() has two operating modes: 1) Immediately mask the interrupt at the irq chip level 2) Software disable it. If an interrupt is raised while disabled then the flow handler observes disabled state, masks it, marks it pending and returns without invoking any device handler. On a subsequent irq_enable() the interrupt is unmasked if it was masked and if the interrupt is marked pending and the interrupt is not level type then it's attempted to retrigger it. Either in hardware or by a software replay mechanism. > * If this interrupt fires while the system is suspended then please > wake the system up. Well, that's kinda contradicting itself. If the interrupt is masked then what is the point? I'm surely missing something subtle here. > On some (many?) interrupt controllers a masked interrupt won't wake > the system up. Thus we need some point in time where the interrupt > controller can unmask interrupts in hardware so that they can act as > wakeups. So far nobody told me about this until now, but why exactly do we need yet another unspecified callback instead of simply telling the core via an irq chip flag that it should always unmask the interrupt if it is a wakeup source? > Also: if an interrupt was masked lazily this could be a good > time to ensure that these interrupts _won't_ wake the system up. Setting IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND does exactly that. No need for a chip driver to do any magic. You just have to use it. So the really obvious counterpart for this is to have: IRQCHIP_UNMASK_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND and then do: @@ -81,6 +81,8 @@ static bool suspend_device_irq(struct ir * IRQD_WAKEUP_ARMED is visible before we return from * suspend_device_irqs(). */ + if (chip->flags & IRQCHIP_UNMASK_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND) + unmask_irq(desc); return true; } plus the counterpart in the resume path. This also ensures that state is consistent. The magic behind the back of the core code unmask brings core state and hardware state out of sync. So if for whatever reason the interrupt is raised in the CPU before the resume path can mask it again, then the flow handler will see disabled state, invoke mask_irq() which does nothing because core state is masked and if that's a level irq it will come back forever. > Thus the point of these callbacks is to provide a hook for IRQ chips > to do this. Now that you understand the motivation perhaps you can > suggest a better way to accomplish this if the approach in this patch > is not OK. See above. > I will note that a quick audit of existing users of the gernic-chip's > irq_suspend() show that they are doing exactly this. So the point of > my patch is to actually allow other IRQ chips (ones that aren't using > generic-chip) to do this type of thing. At the same time my patch > provides a way for current users of generic-chip to adapt their > routines so they work without syscore (which, I guess, isn't > compatible with s2idle). If that's the main problem which is solved in these callbacks, then I really have to ask why this has not been raised years ago. Why can't people talk? IIRC back then when the callbacks for GC were added the reason was that the affected chips needed a way to save and restore the full chip state because the hardware lost it during suspend. S2idle did not exist back then at least not in it's current form. Oh well... But gust replacing them by something which is yet another sinkhole for horrible hacks behind the core code is not making it any better. I fear another sweep through the unpleasantries of chip drivers is due sooner than later. Aside of finding time, I need to find my eyecancer protection glasses and check my schnaps stock. >> So what happens in this case: >> >> CPU0 CPU1 >> interrupt suspend_device_irq() >> handle() chip->suspend_one() >> action() ... >> chip->fiddle(); >> >> ???? > > Ah, so I guess we need to move the call to suspend_one_irq() till > after the (potential) call to synchronize_irq() in in > suspend_device_irqs()? For what you are trying to achieve, no. IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND is already safe. If we add IRQCHIP_UNMASK_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND then there is no sync problem either. > Hopefully with the above explanation this makes more sense? At least the explanation helped to understand the problem, while the changelog was pretty useless in that regard: "These two callbacks are interesting because sometimes an irq chip needs to know about suspend/resume." Really valuable and precise technical information. But aside of the confusion, even with your explanation of what you are trying to solve, I really want a coherent explanation why this should be done for any of those: 1) an interrupt which has no action, i.e. an interrupt which has no active users and is in the worst case completely deactivated or was never activated to begin with. In the inactive case it might be in a state where unmask issues an invalid vector, causes hardware malfunction or hits undefined software state in the chip drivers in the hierarchy. If you want to be woken up by irq X, then request irq X which ensures that irq X is in a usable state at all levels of the stack. If you call disable_irq() or mark the interrupt with IRQ_NOAUTOEN, fine, it's still consistent state. 2) interrupts which have no_suspend_depth > 0 which means that there is an action requested which explicitely says: don't touch me on suspend. If that driver invokes disable_irq() then it can keep the pieces. 3) chained interrupts They are never disabled and never masked. So why would anything need to be done here? Side note: they should not exist at all, but that's a different story. If you don't have coherent explanations, then please just don't touch that condition at all. Hint: "Sometimes a chip needs to know" does not qualify :) Thanks, tglx
Hi, On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 3:09 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > > > Specifically the problem we're trying to address is when an IRQ is > > marked as "disabled" (driver called disable_irq()) but also marked as > > "wakeup" (driver called enable_irq_wake()). As per my understanding, > > this means: > > > > * Don't call the interrupt handler for this interrupt until I call > > enable_irq() but keep tracking it (either in hardware or in software). > > Specifically it's a requirement that if the interrupt fires one or > > more times while masked the interrupt handler should be called as soon > > as enable_irq() is called. > > irq_disable() has two operating modes: > > 1) Immediately mask the interrupt at the irq chip level > > 2) Software disable it. If an interrupt is raised while disabled > then the flow handler observes disabled state, masks it, marks it > pending and returns without invoking any device handler. > > On a subsequent irq_enable() the interrupt is unmasked if it was masked > and if the interrupt is marked pending and the interrupt is not level > type then it's attempted to retrigger it. Either in hardware or by a > software replay mechanism. > > > * If this interrupt fires while the system is suspended then please > > wake the system up. > > Well, that's kinda contradicting itself. If the interrupt is masked then > what is the point? I'm surely missing something subtle here. This is how I've always been told that the API works and there are at least a handful of drivers in the kernel whose suspend routines both enable wakeup and call disable_irq(). Isn't this also documented as of commit f9f21cea3113 ("genirq: Clarify that irq wake state is orthogonal to enable/disable")? > > On some (many?) interrupt controllers a masked interrupt won't wake > > the system up. Thus we need some point in time where the interrupt > > controller can unmask interrupts in hardware so that they can act as > > wakeups. > > So far nobody told me about this until now, but why exactly do we need > yet another unspecified callback instead of simply telling the core via > an irq chip flag that it should always unmask the interrupt if it is a > wakeup source? > > > Also: if an interrupt was masked lazily this could be a good > > time to ensure that these interrupts _won't_ wake the system up. > > Setting IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND does exactly that. No need for a chip > driver to do any magic. You just have to use it. > > So the really obvious counterpart for this is to have: > > IRQCHIP_UNMASK_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND > > and then do: > > @@ -81,6 +81,8 @@ static bool suspend_device_irq(struct ir > * IRQD_WAKEUP_ARMED is visible before we return from > * suspend_device_irqs(). > */ > + if (chip->flags & IRQCHIP_UNMASK_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND) > + unmask_irq(desc); > return true; > } > > plus the counterpart in the resume path. This also ensures that state is > consistent. This sounds wonderful to me. Maulik: I think you could replace quite a few of the patches in the series and just use that. > The magic behind the back of the core code unmask brings core state and > hardware state out of sync. So if for whatever reason the interrupt is > raised in the CPU before the resume path can mask it again, then the > flow handler will see disabled state, invoke mask_irq() which does > nothing because core state is masked and if that's a level irq it will > come back forever. > > > Thus the point of these callbacks is to provide a hook for IRQ chips > > to do this. Now that you understand the motivation perhaps you can > > suggest a better way to accomplish this if the approach in this patch > > is not OK. > > See above. > > > I will note that a quick audit of existing users of the gernic-chip's > > irq_suspend() show that they are doing exactly this. So the point of > > my patch is to actually allow other IRQ chips (ones that aren't using > > generic-chip) to do this type of thing. At the same time my patch > > provides a way for current users of generic-chip to adapt their > > routines so they work without syscore (which, I guess, isn't > > compatible with s2idle). > > If that's the main problem which is solved in these callbacks, then I > really have to ask why this has not been raised years ago. Why can't > people talk? Not all of us have the big picture that you do to know how things ought to work, I guess. If nothing else someone looking at this problem would think: "this must be a common problem, let's go see how all the other places do it" and then they find how everyone else is doing it and do it that way. It requires the grander picture that a maintainer has in order to say: whoa, everyone's copying the same hack--let's come up with a better solution. > IIRC back then when the callbacks for GC were added the reason was that > the affected chips needed a way to save and restore the full chip state > because the hardware lost it during suspend. S2idle did not exist back > then at least not in it's current form. Oh well... > > But gust replacing them by something which is yet another sinkhole for > horrible hacks behind the core code is not making it any better. > > I fear another sweep through the unpleasantries of chip drivers is due > sooner than later. Aside of finding time, I need to find my eyecancer > protection glasses and check my schnaps stock. > > >> So what happens in this case: > >> > >> CPU0 CPU1 > >> interrupt suspend_device_irq() > >> handle() chip->suspend_one() > >> action() ... > >> chip->fiddle(); > >> > >> ???? > > > > Ah, so I guess we need to move the call to suspend_one_irq() till > > after the (potential) call to synchronize_irq() in in > > suspend_device_irqs()? > > For what you are trying to achieve, no. IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND is > already safe. > > If we add IRQCHIP_UNMASK_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND then there is no sync > problem either. > > > Hopefully with the above explanation this makes more sense? > > At least the explanation helped to understand the problem, while the > changelog was pretty useless in that regard: > > "These two callbacks are interesting because sometimes an irq chip > needs to know about suspend/resume." > > Really valuable and precise technical information. Funny to get yelled at for not providing a detailed enough changelog. Usually people complain that my changelogs are too detailed. Sigh. > But aside of the confusion, even with your explanation of what you are > trying to solve, I really want a coherent explanation why this should be > done for any of those: > > 1) an interrupt which has no action, i.e. an interrupt which has no > active users and is in the worst case completely deactivated or was > never activated to begin with. > > In the inactive case it might be in a state where unmask issues an > invalid vector, causes hardware malfunction or hits undefined > software state in the chip drivers in the hierarchy. > > If you want to be woken up by irq X, then request irq X which > ensures that irq X is in a usable state at all levels of the > stack. If you call disable_irq() or mark the interrupt with > IRQ_NOAUTOEN, fine, it's still consistent state. > > 2) interrupts which have no_suspend_depth > 0 which means that > there is an action requested which explicitely says: don't touch me > on suspend. > > If that driver invokes disable_irq() then it can keep the pieces. > > 3) chained interrupts > > They are never disabled and never masked. So why would anything > need to be done here? > > Side note: they should not exist at all, but that's a different > story. > > If you don't have coherent explanations, then please just don't touch > that condition at all. > > Hint: "Sometimes a chip needs to know" does not qualify :) Clearly I am not coherent. ;-) My only goal was to help enable interrupts that were disabled / marked as wakeup (as per above, documented to be OK) to work on Qualcomm chips. This specifically affects me because a driver that I need to work (cros_ec) does this. If IRQCHIP_UNMASK_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND is good to add then it sounds like a great plan to me. -Doug
Doug, On Thu, Aug 13 2020 at 15:58, Doug Anderson wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 3:09 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: >> > * If this interrupt fires while the system is suspended then please >> > wake the system up. >> >> Well, that's kinda contradicting itself. If the interrupt is masked then >> what is the point? I'm surely missing something subtle here. > > This is how I've always been told that the API works and there are at > least a handful of drivers in the kernel whose suspend routines both > enable wakeup and call disable_irq(). Isn't this also documented as > of commit f9f21cea3113 ("genirq: Clarify that irq wake state is > orthogonal to enable/disable")? Fair enough. The wording there is unfortunate and I probably should have spent more brain cycles before applying it. It suggests that this is a pure driver problem. I should have asked some of the questions I asked now back then :( >> If that's the main problem which is solved in these callbacks, then I >> really have to ask why this has not been raised years ago. Why can't >> people talk? > > Not all of us have the big picture that you do to know how things > ought to work, I guess. If nothing else someone looking at this > problem would think: "this must be a common problem, let's go see how > all the other places do it" and then they find how everyone else is > doing it and do it that way. It requires the grander picture that a > maintainer has in order to say: whoa, everyone's copying the same > hack--let's come up with a better solution. That's not the point. I know how these things happen, but I fail to understand why nobody ever looks at this and says: OMG, I need to do yet another variant of copy&pasta of the same thing every other driver does. Why is there no infrastructure for that? Asking that question does not require a maintainer who always encouraged people to talk about exactly these kind of things instead of going off and creating the gazillionst broken copy of the same thing with yet another wart working around core code problems and thereby violating layering and introducing bugs which wouldn't exist otherwise. Spare me all the $corp reasons. I've heard all of them and if not then the not yet known reason won't be any more convincing. :) One of the most underutilized strengths of FOSS is that you can go and ask someone who has the big picture in his head before you go off and waste time on distangling copy&pasta, dealing with the resulting obvious bugs and then the latent ones which only surface 3 month after the product has shipped. Or like in this case figure out that the copy&pasta road is a dead end and then create something new without seeing the big picture and having analyzed completely what consequences this might have. I don't know how much hours you and others spent on this. I surely know that after you gave me proper context it took me less than an hour to figure out that one problem you were trying to solve was already solved and the other one was just a matter of doing the counterpart of it. I definitely spent way more time on reviewing and debating. So if you had asked upfront, I probably would have spent quite some time on it as well depending on the quality of the question and explanation but the total amount on both sides would have been significantly lower, which I consider a win-win situation. Of course I know that my $corp MBA foo is close to zero, so I just can be sure that it would have been a win for me :) Seriously, we need to promote a 'talk to each other' culture very actively. The people with the big picture in their head, aka maintainers, are happy to answer questions and they also want that others come forth and say "this makes no sense" instead of silently accepting that the five other drivers do something stupid. This would help to solve some of the well known problems: - Maintainer scalability I rather discuss a problem with you at the conceptual level upfront instead of reviewing patches after the fact and having to tell you that it's all wrong. The latter takes way more time. Having a quick and dirty POC for illustration is fine and usually useful. - Maintainer blinders Maintainers need input from the outside as any other people because they become blind to shortcomings in the area they are responsible for as any other person. Especially if they maintain complex and highly active subsystems. - Submitter frustration You spent a huge amount of time to come up with a solution for something and then you get told by the maintainer/reviewer that the time spent was wasted and your solution is crap. It does not matter much what the politeness level of that message is. It sets you back and causes frustration on both ends. - Turn around times A lot of time can be spared by talking to each other early. A half baken POC patch is fine for opening such a discussion, but going down all the way and then having the talk over the final patch review is more than suboptimal and causes grief on both sides. >> "These two callbacks are interesting because sometimes an irq chip >> needs to know about suspend/resume." >> >> Really valuable and precise technical information. > > Funny to get yelled at for not providing a detailed enough changelog. > Usually people complain that my changelogs are too detailed. Sigh. The complaint you might get from me about an overly detailed changelog is that it has redundant or pointless information in it, e.g. - the 500 lines of debug dump containing about 10 lines of valuable information which you already decoded and condensed in order to figure the problem out. - anecdotes around the discovery which carry zero information and often show that that the scope of the problem was not fully understood. - pointless examples of how to trigger the fail - In depth explanaations of what the patch does instead of a concise explanation at the conceptual level. You won't hear me complain about a concise and coherent in depth technical explanation of a problem. Writing changelogs is an art and I surely look at some of my own changelogs written long ago and yell at myself from time to time. Reading a patch goes top down obviously: 1) Subject line 2) Changelog 3) Patch. If I have to rumage for my crystal ball before #3 then I already spent more time than necessary. If the thing is some random feature then I might just say: try again. But if I get the sense that it is about a bug or has some smell of a shorrcoming in the core code then I have to bite the bullet and decode it the hard way. Not the most efficient way. And from experience I can tell you that if #1 and #2 are already problematic then #3 needs some serious scrutiny in most cases. >> Hint: "Sometimes a chip needs to know" does not qualify :) > > Clearly I am not coherent. ;-) My only goal was to help enable > interrupts that were disabled / marked as wakeup (as per above, > documented to be OK) to work on Qualcomm chips. This specifically > affects me because a driver that I need to work (cros_ec) does this. Mission acoomplished :) > If IRQCHIP_UNMASK_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND is good to add then it sounds like > a great plan to me. If it solves the problem and from what you explained it should do so then this is definitely the right way to go. Thanks, tglx
Hi, On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 7:07 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > > Doug, > > On Thu, Aug 13 2020 at 15:58, Doug Anderson wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 3:09 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > >> > * If this interrupt fires while the system is suspended then please > >> > wake the system up. > >> > >> Well, that's kinda contradicting itself. If the interrupt is masked then > >> what is the point? I'm surely missing something subtle here. > > > > This is how I've always been told that the API works and there are at > > least a handful of drivers in the kernel whose suspend routines both > > enable wakeup and call disable_irq(). Isn't this also documented as > > of commit f9f21cea3113 ("genirq: Clarify that irq wake state is > > orthogonal to enable/disable")? > > Fair enough. The wording there is unfortunate and I probably should have > spent more brain cycles before applying it. It suggests that this is a > pure driver problem. I should have asked some of the questions I asked > now back then :( I mean, certainly a driver could be rewritten not to do this. ...and, in fact, the easier approach (for just solving my immediate concern) would be to change cros-ec not to do this. However, it was my understanding that what cros-ec was doing was actually just fine and part of the API to drivers. This understanding was solidified when the patch I mentioned landed. When looking at this before I found that certainly there are other drivers that do this and it felt better to implement the proper thing rather than add a hack to cros-ec to work around the Qualcomm pinctrl driver. In general the idea here, I think, is that in the "suspend" call of a driver it might want to disable interrupts so that it doesn't have to deal with them after the driver has configured things (and adjusted its internal data structures) for suspend. However, it might still want its interrupt to cause a wakeup. ...so it wants the wakeup to happen (and its resume call to be made to get everything back in the right state) and at the end of the resume call it wants to enable its interrupt handler again. That seems like a sane design pattern to me, but maybe I'm crazy. Yes, I guess the driver could implement the "noirq" suspend function, but sometimes it's simpler to have a single suspend function that first leverages interrupts, then disables them at an exact point it can control, and then finishes adjusting its state. I'll also note that the concept that a masked interrupt can "wake you up" is also not unlike how ARM SoCs work, which is part of what made me feel like this API was fine. Specifically if you have interrupts masked at the CPU level and then enter "WFI" (wait for interrupt) it will wake up (or come out of idle) from one of those masked interrupts. > >> If that's the main problem which is solved in these callbacks, then I > >> really have to ask why this has not been raised years ago. Why can't > >> people talk? > > > > Not all of us have the big picture that you do to know how things > > ought to work, I guess. If nothing else someone looking at this > > problem would think: "this must be a common problem, let's go see how > > all the other places do it" and then they find how everyone else is > > doing it and do it that way. It requires the grander picture that a > > maintainer has in order to say: whoa, everyone's copying the same > > hack--let's come up with a better solution. > > That's not the point. I know how these things happen, but I fail to > understand why nobody ever looks at this and says: OMG, I need to do yet > another variant of copy&pasta of the same thing every other driver > does. Why is there no infrastructure for that? > > Asking that question does not require a maintainer who always encouraged > people to talk about exactly these kind of things instead of going off > and creating the gazillionst broken copy of the same thing with yet > another wart working around core code problems and thereby violating > layering and introducing bugs which wouldn't exist otherwise. > > Spare me all the $corp reasons. I've heard all of them and if not then > the not yet known reason won't be any more convincing. :) As per above, if I was simply motivated to hack it to get it done I would have suggested we just muck with cros_ec. I certainly do have a bias for getting things done and getting things landed, but I also try to pride myself in not saying that we should just accept any old hack. Perhaps many people posting patches just want any old crap landed, but I'd like to think I'm not one of them. > One of the most underutilized strengths of FOSS is that you can go and > ask someone who has the big picture in his head before you go off and > waste time on distangling copy&pasta, dealing with the resulting obvious > bugs and then the latent ones which only surface 3 month after the > product has shipped. Or like in this case figure out that the copy&pasta > road is a dead end and then create something new without seeing the big > picture and having analyzed completely what consequences this might have. I've found that one of the best ways to get something figured out is to post a patch, even if it's not perfect. Perhaps in cases where you're involved, but in general most cases where you just ask a question you get ignored. You've gotta post a patch. This solution was the best I was able to come up with and was discussed with several people before posting. > I don't know how much hours you and others spent on this. I surely know > that after you gave me proper context it took me less than an hour to > figure out that one problem you were trying to solve was already solved > and the other one was just a matter of doing the counterpart of it. I > definitely spent way more time on reviewing and debating. I did spend quite a bit of time on it, though perhaps it's not obvious. Though I agree that the patch in isolation didn't have a good enough description, I felt like it combined with the later patches in the series did show what I was trying to do. > So if you had asked upfront, I probably would have spent quite some time > on it as well depending on the quality of the question and explanation > but the total amount on both sides would have been significantly lower, > which I consider a win-win situation. > > Of course I know that my $corp MBA foo is close to zero, so I just can > be sure that it would have been a win for me :) > > Seriously, we need to promote a 'talk to each other' culture very > actively. The people with the big picture in their head, aka > maintainers, are happy to answer questions and they also want that > others come forth and say "this makes no sense" instead of silently > accepting that the five other drivers do something stupid. This would > help to solve some of the well known problems: > > - Maintainer scalability > > I rather discuss a problem with you at the conceptual level upfront > instead of reviewing patches after the fact and having to tell you > that it's all wrong. The latter takes way more time. > > Having a quick and dirty POC for illustration is fine and usually > useful. OK, I will try to remember that, in the future, I should send questions rather than patches to you. I'm always learning the workflows of the different maintainers, so sorry for killing so much time. :( > - Maintainer blinders > > Maintainers need input from the outside as any other people because > they become blind to shortcomings in the area they are responsible > for as any other person. Especially if they maintain complex and > highly active subsystems. > > - Submitter frustration > > You spent a huge amount of time to come up with a solution for > something and then you get told by the maintainer/reviewer that the > time spent was wasted and your solution is crap. It does not matter > much what the politeness level of that message is. It sets you back > and causes frustration on both ends. > > - Turn around times > > A lot of time can be spared by talking to each other early. A half > baken POC patch is fine for opening such a discussion, but going down > all the way and then having the talk over the final patch review is > more than suboptimal and causes grief on both sides. Yup, definitely understand. Again, sorry for the misunderstandings this time around and hopefully we can find better ways to interact in the future. > >> "These two callbacks are interesting because sometimes an irq chip > >> needs to know about suspend/resume." > >> > >> Really valuable and precise technical information. > > > > Funny to get yelled at for not providing a detailed enough changelog. > > Usually people complain that my changelogs are too detailed. Sigh. > > The complaint you might get from me about an overly detailed changelog > is that it has redundant or pointless information in it, e.g. > > - the 500 lines of debug dump containing about 10 lines of valuable > information which you already decoded and condensed in order to > figure the problem out. > > - anecdotes around the discovery which carry zero information and > often show that that the scope of the problem was not fully > understood. > > - pointless examples of how to trigger the fail > > - In depth explanaations of what the patch does instead of a concise > explanation at the conceptual level. > > You won't hear me complain about a concise and coherent in depth > technical explanation of a problem. > > Writing changelogs is an art and I surely look at some of my own > changelogs written long ago and yell at myself from time to time. > > Reading a patch goes top down obviously: > > 1) Subject line > 2) Changelog > 3) Patch. > > If I have to rumage for my crystal ball before #3 then I already spent > more time than necessary. If the thing is some random feature then I > might just say: try again. But if I get the sense that it is about a bug > or has some smell of a shorrcoming in the core code then I have to bite > the bullet and decode it the hard way. Not the most efficient way. And > from experience I can tell you that if #1 and #2 are already problematic > then #3 needs some serious scrutiny in most cases. > > >> Hint: "Sometimes a chip needs to know" does not qualify :) > > > > Clearly I am not coherent. ;-) My only goal was to help enable > > interrupts that were disabled / marked as wakeup (as per above, > > documented to be OK) to work on Qualcomm chips. This specifically > > affects me because a driver that I need to work (cros_ec) does this. > > Mission acoomplished :) > > > If IRQCHIP_UNMASK_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND is good to add then it sounds like > > a great plan to me. > > If it solves the problem and from what you explained it should do so > then this is definitely the right way to go. Wonderful! Looking forward to Maulik's post doing it this way. -Doug
Doug, On Thu, Aug 13 2020 at 20:04, Doug Anderson wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 7:07 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: >> Having a quick and dirty POC for illustration is fine and usually >> useful. > > OK, I will try to remember that, in the future, I should send > questions rather than patches to you. I'm always learning the The quick and dirty POC patch for illustration along with the questions is always good to catch my attention. > workflows of the different maintainers, so sorry for killing so much > time. :( No problem. >> If it solves the problem and from what you explained it should do so >> then this is definitely the right way to go. > > Wonderful! Looking forward to Maulik's post doing it this way. /me closes the case for now and moves on. Thanks tglx
Hi, On 8/14/2020 4:28 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 3:09 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: >>> Specifically the problem we're trying to address is when an IRQ is >>> marked as "disabled" (driver called disable_irq()) but also marked as >>> "wakeup" (driver called enable_irq_wake()). As per my understanding, >>> this means: >>> >>> * Don't call the interrupt handler for this interrupt until I call >>> enable_irq() but keep tracking it (either in hardware or in software). >>> Specifically it's a requirement that if the interrupt fires one or >>> more times while masked the interrupt handler should be called as soon >>> as enable_irq() is called. >> irq_disable() has two operating modes: >> >> 1) Immediately mask the interrupt at the irq chip level >> >> 2) Software disable it. If an interrupt is raised while disabled >> then the flow handler observes disabled state, masks it, marks it >> pending and returns without invoking any device handler. >> >> On a subsequent irq_enable() the interrupt is unmasked if it was masked >> and if the interrupt is marked pending and the interrupt is not level >> type then it's attempted to retrigger it. Either in hardware or by a >> software replay mechanism. >> >>> * If this interrupt fires while the system is suspended then please >>> wake the system up. >> Well, that's kinda contradicting itself. If the interrupt is masked then >> what is the point? I'm surely missing something subtle here. > This is how I've always been told that the API works and there are at > least a handful of drivers in the kernel whose suspend routines both > enable wakeup and call disable_irq(). Isn't this also documented as > of commit f9f21cea3113 ("genirq: Clarify that irq wake state is > orthogonal to enable/disable")? > > >>> On some (many?) interrupt controllers a masked interrupt won't wake >>> the system up. Thus we need some point in time where the interrupt >>> controller can unmask interrupts in hardware so that they can act as >>> wakeups. >> So far nobody told me about this until now, but why exactly do we need >> yet another unspecified callback instead of simply telling the core via >> an irq chip flag that it should always unmask the interrupt if it is a >> wakeup source? >> >>> Also: if an interrupt was masked lazily this could be a good >>> time to ensure that these interrupts _won't_ wake the system up. >> Setting IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND does exactly that. No need for a chip >> driver to do any magic. You just have to use it. >> >> So the really obvious counterpart for this is to have: >> >> IRQCHIP_UNMASK_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND >> >> and then do: >> >> @@ -81,6 +81,8 @@ static bool suspend_device_irq(struct ir >> * IRQD_WAKEUP_ARMED is visible before we return from >> * suspend_device_irqs(). >> */ >> + if (chip->flags & IRQCHIP_UNMASK_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND) >> + unmask_irq(desc); >> return true; >> } >> >> plus the counterpart in the resume path. This also ensures that state is >> consistent. > This sounds wonderful to me. Maulik: I think you could replace quite > a few of the patches in the series and just use that. Sure. + if (chip->flags & IRQCHIP_UNMASK_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND) + unmask_irq(desc); I tried this patch and it didnot work as is. Calling unmask_irq() only invoke's chip's .irq_unmask callback but the underlying irq_chip have .irq_enable also present. Replacing the call with irq_enable() internally takes care of either invoking chip's .irq_enable (if its present) else it invokes unmask_irq(). + + if (chip->flags & IRQCHIP_UNMASK_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND) + irq_enable(desc); probably IRQCHIP_UNMASK_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND should also be renamed to IRQCHIP_ENABLE_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND. Thanks, Maulik > > >> The magic behind the back of the core code unmask brings core state and >> hardware state out of sync. So if for whatever reason the interrupt is >> raised in the CPU before the resume path can mask it again, then the >> flow handler will see disabled state, invoke mask_irq() which does >> nothing because core state is masked and if that's a level irq it will >> come back forever. >> >>> Thus the point of these callbacks is to provide a hook for IRQ chips >>> to do this. Now that you understand the motivation perhaps you can >>> suggest a better way to accomplish this if the approach in this patch >>> is not OK. >> See above. >> >>> I will note that a quick audit of existing users of the gernic-chip's >>> irq_suspend() show that they are doing exactly this. So the point of >>> my patch is to actually allow other IRQ chips (ones that aren't using >>> generic-chip) to do this type of thing. At the same time my patch >>> provides a way for current users of generic-chip to adapt their >>> routines so they work without syscore (which, I guess, isn't >>> compatible with s2idle). >> If that's the main problem which is solved in these callbacks, then I >> really have to ask why this has not been raised years ago. Why can't >> people talk? > Not all of us have the big picture that you do to know how things > ought to work, I guess. If nothing else someone looking at this > problem would think: "this must be a common problem, let's go see how > all the other places do it" and then they find how everyone else is > doing it and do it that way. It requires the grander picture that a > maintainer has in order to say: whoa, everyone's copying the same > hack--let's come up with a better solution. > > >> IIRC back then when the callbacks for GC were added the reason was that >> the affected chips needed a way to save and restore the full chip state >> because the hardware lost it during suspend. S2idle did not exist back >> then at least not in it's current form. Oh well... >> >> But gust replacing them by something which is yet another sinkhole for >> horrible hacks behind the core code is not making it any better. >> >> I fear another sweep through the unpleasantries of chip drivers is due >> sooner than later. Aside of finding time, I need to find my eyecancer >> protection glasses and check my schnaps stock. >> >>>> So what happens in this case: >>>> >>>> CPU0 CPU1 >>>> interrupt suspend_device_irq() >>>> handle() chip->suspend_one() >>>> action() ... >>>> chip->fiddle(); >>>> >>>> ???? >>> Ah, so I guess we need to move the call to suspend_one_irq() till >>> after the (potential) call to synchronize_irq() in in >>> suspend_device_irqs()? >> For what you are trying to achieve, no. IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND is >> already safe. >> >> If we add IRQCHIP_UNMASK_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND then there is no sync >> problem either. >> >>> Hopefully with the above explanation this makes more sense? >> At least the explanation helped to understand the problem, while the >> changelog was pretty useless in that regard: >> >> "These two callbacks are interesting because sometimes an irq chip >> needs to know about suspend/resume." >> >> Really valuable and precise technical information. > Funny to get yelled at for not providing a detailed enough changelog. > Usually people complain that my changelogs are too detailed. Sigh. > > >> But aside of the confusion, even with your explanation of what you are >> trying to solve, I really want a coherent explanation why this should be >> done for any of those: >> >> 1) an interrupt which has no action, i.e. an interrupt which has no >> active users and is in the worst case completely deactivated or was >> never activated to begin with. >> >> In the inactive case it might be in a state where unmask issues an >> invalid vector, causes hardware malfunction or hits undefined >> software state in the chip drivers in the hierarchy. >> >> If you want to be woken up by irq X, then request irq X which >> ensures that irq X is in a usable state at all levels of the >> stack. If you call disable_irq() or mark the interrupt with >> IRQ_NOAUTOEN, fine, it's still consistent state. >> >> 2) interrupts which have no_suspend_depth > 0 which means that >> there is an action requested which explicitely says: don't touch me >> on suspend. >> >> If that driver invokes disable_irq() then it can keep the pieces. >> >> 3) chained interrupts >> >> They are never disabled and never masked. So why would anything >> need to be done here? >> >> Side note: they should not exist at all, but that's a different >> story. >> >> If you don't have coherent explanations, then please just don't touch >> that condition at all. >> >> Hint: "Sometimes a chip needs to know" does not qualify :) > Clearly I am not coherent. ;-) My only goal was to help enable > interrupts that were disabled / marked as wakeup (as per above, > documented to be OK) to work on Qualcomm chips. This specifically > affects me because a driver that I need to work (cros_ec) does this. > If IRQCHIP_UNMASK_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND is good to add then it sounds like > a great plan to me. > > > -Doug
Maulik, On Tue, Aug 18 2020 at 10:05, Maulik Shah wrote: > On 8/14/2020 4:28 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 3:09 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > > + if (chip->flags & IRQCHIP_UNMASK_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND) > + unmask_irq(desc); > > I tried this patch and it didnot work as is. > > Calling unmask_irq() only invoke's chip's .irq_unmask callback but the > underlying irq_chip have .irq_enable also present. > > Replacing the call with irq_enable() internally takes care of either > invoking chip's .irq_enable (if its present) else it invokes unmask_irq(). > > + > + if (chip->flags & IRQCHIP_UNMASK_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND) > + irq_enable(desc); > > probably IRQCHIP_UNMASK_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND should also be renamed to > IRQCHIP_ENABLE_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND. Makes sense and also works when the interrupt is already enabled. Thanks, tglx
diff --git a/include/linux/irq.h b/include/linux/irq.h index 1b7f4df..8d37b32 100644 --- a/include/linux/irq.h +++ b/include/linux/irq.h @@ -468,10 +468,16 @@ static inline irq_hw_number_t irqd_to_hwirq(struct irq_data *d) * @irq_bus_sync_unlock:function to sync and unlock slow bus (i2c) chips * @irq_cpu_online: configure an interrupt source for a secondary CPU * @irq_cpu_offline: un-configure an interrupt source for a secondary CPU + * @irq_suspend_one: called on an every irq to suspend it; called even if + * this IRQ is configured for wakeup + * @irq_resume_one: called on an every irq to resume it; called even if + * this IRQ is configured for wakeup * @irq_suspend: function called from core code on suspend once per - * chip, when one or more interrupts are installed + * chip, when one or more interrupts are installed; + * only works if using irq/generic-chip * @irq_resume: function called from core code on resume once per chip, - * when one ore more interrupts are installed + * when one ore more interrupts are installed; + * only works if using irq/generic-chip * @irq_pm_shutdown: function called from core code on shutdown once per chip * @irq_calc_mask: Optional function to set irq_data.mask for special cases * @irq_print_chip: optional to print special chip info in show_interrupts @@ -515,6 +521,9 @@ struct irq_chip { void (*irq_cpu_online)(struct irq_data *data); void (*irq_cpu_offline)(struct irq_data *data); + void (*irq_suspend_one)(struct irq_data *data); + void (*irq_resume_one)(struct irq_data *data); + void (*irq_suspend)(struct irq_data *data); void (*irq_resume)(struct irq_data *data); void (*irq_pm_shutdown)(struct irq_data *data); diff --git a/kernel/irq/chip.c b/kernel/irq/chip.c index 857f5f4..caf80c1 100644 --- a/kernel/irq/chip.c +++ b/kernel/irq/chip.c @@ -447,6 +447,22 @@ void unmask_threaded_irq(struct irq_desc *desc) unmask_irq(desc); } +void suspend_one_irq(struct irq_desc *desc) +{ + struct irq_chip *chip = desc->irq_data.chip; + + if (chip->irq_suspend_one) + chip->irq_suspend_one(&desc->irq_data); +} + +void resume_one_irq(struct irq_desc *desc) +{ + struct irq_chip *chip = desc->irq_data.chip; + + if (chip->irq_resume_one) + chip->irq_resume_one(&desc->irq_data); +} + /* * handle_nested_irq - Handle a nested irq from a irq thread * @irq: the interrupt number diff --git a/kernel/irq/internals.h b/kernel/irq/internals.h index 7db284b..11c2dac 100644 --- a/kernel/irq/internals.h +++ b/kernel/irq/internals.h @@ -90,6 +90,8 @@ extern void irq_percpu_disable(struct irq_desc *desc, unsigned int cpu); extern void mask_irq(struct irq_desc *desc); extern void unmask_irq(struct irq_desc *desc); extern void unmask_threaded_irq(struct irq_desc *desc); +extern void suspend_one_irq(struct irq_desc *desc); +extern void resume_one_irq(struct irq_desc *desc); #ifdef CONFIG_SPARSE_IRQ static inline void irq_mark_irq(unsigned int irq) { } diff --git a/kernel/irq/pm.c b/kernel/irq/pm.c index 8f557fa..b9e5338 100644 --- a/kernel/irq/pm.c +++ b/kernel/irq/pm.c @@ -69,19 +69,23 @@ void irq_pm_remove_action(struct irq_desc *desc, struct irqaction *action) static bool suspend_device_irq(struct irq_desc *desc) { + bool sync = false; + if (!desc->action || irq_desc_is_chained(desc) || desc->no_suspend_depth) - return false; + goto exit; if (irqd_is_wakeup_set(&desc->irq_data)) { irqd_set(&desc->irq_data, IRQD_WAKEUP_ARMED); + /* * We return true here to force the caller to issue * synchronize_irq(). We need to make sure that the * IRQD_WAKEUP_ARMED is visible before we return from * suspend_device_irqs(). */ - return true; + sync = true; + goto exit; } desc->istate |= IRQS_SUSPENDED; @@ -95,7 +99,10 @@ static bool suspend_device_irq(struct irq_desc *desc) */ if (irq_desc_get_chip(desc)->flags & IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND) mask_irq(desc); - return true; + +exit: + suspend_one_irq(desc); + return sync; } /** @@ -137,6 +144,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(suspend_device_irqs); static void resume_irq(struct irq_desc *desc) { + resume_one_irq(desc); + irqd_clear(&desc->irq_data, IRQD_WAKEUP_ARMED); if (desc->istate & IRQS_SUSPENDED)