| Message ID | 20140729163345.GF17808@saruman.home (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
* Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140729 09:36]: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:40:57AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 08:20:52AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > * Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140729 07:18]: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 05:14:25AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > > * Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140728 14:19]: > > > > > > now that we don't need to support legacy board-files, > > > > > > we can completely switch over to a linear irq domain > > > > > > and make use of irq_alloc_domain_generic_chips() to > > > > > > allocate all generic irq chips for us. > > > > > > > > > > This patch seems to somehow break off-idle for omap3 > > > > > where it no longer wakes up. > > > > > > > > Sure your bisection is correct ? This patch just switches from legacy > > > > irq domain to linear irq domain. > > > > > > Yes, I tried it a few times. Just enabling > > > retention idle hangs too with this patch. > > > > > > Maybe it's omap3_prcm_irq_setup that relies on > > > 11 + OMAP_INTC_START? There may be other such issues > > > > lol. > > > > OMAP4 has the same nonsense. > > made me think why (if) OMAP4 works with that same setup. Does wake from > OFF work with OMAP4 ? Not without similar changes, omap4+ has the same issue.. There's a RFC series from Nishant to fix some of this, and Tero is moving the PRCM into a driver. > Anyway, here's a quick little hack to check if that's the reason for the > regression: OK yeah that's along the same lines with Nishant's RFC series in thread "[RFC PATCH 0/7] ARM: OMAP4+: PRM: minor cleanups and dt support of interrupts" FYI, it did not compile, needs to include linux/of_irq.h. But yes, it fixes the regression for me, Also now the whole series works for me :) Regards, Tony > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3.dtsi > index ff953c9..c234b98 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3.dtsi > @@ -97,6 +97,7 @@ > prm: prm@48306000 { > compatible = "ti,omap3-prm"; > reg = <0x48306000 0x4000>; > + interrupts = <11>; > > prm_clocks: clocks { > #address-cells = <1>; > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c > index 25e8b82..3d11377 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c > @@ -242,6 +242,11 @@ void omap_prcm_irq_complete(void) > prcm_irq_setup->restore_irqen(prcm_irq_setup->saved_mask); > } > > +static struct of_device_id tmp[] = { > + { .compatible = "ti,omap3-prm" }, > + { } > +}; > + > /** > * omap_prcm_register_chain_handler - initializes the prcm chained interrupt > * handler based on provided parameters > @@ -254,17 +259,24 @@ void omap_prcm_irq_complete(void) > */ > int omap_prcm_register_chain_handler(struct omap_prcm_irq_setup *irq_setup) > { > + struct device_node *node; > int nr_regs; > u32 mask[OMAP_PRCM_MAX_NR_PENDING_REG]; > int offset, i; > + int irq; > struct irq_chip_generic *gc; > struct irq_chip_type *ct; > > if (!irq_setup) > return -EINVAL; > > + irq = irq_setup->irq; > nr_regs = irq_setup->nr_regs; > > + node = of_find_matching_node(NULL, tmp); > + if (node) > + irq = of_irq_get(node, 0); > + > if (prcm_irq_setup) { > pr_err("PRCM: already initialized; won't reinitialize\n"); > return -EINVAL; > @@ -298,7 +310,7 @@ int omap_prcm_register_chain_handler(struct omap_prcm_irq_setup *irq_setup) > 1 << (offset & 0x1f); > } > > - irq_set_chained_handler(irq_setup->irq, omap_prcm_irq_handler); > + irq_set_chained_handler(irq, omap_prcm_irq_handler); > > irq_setup->base_irq = irq_alloc_descs(-1, 0, irq_setup->nr_regs * 32, > 0); > > -- > balbi
HI, On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:04:21PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140729 09:36]: > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:40:57AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 08:20:52AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > * Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140729 07:18]: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 05:14:25AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > > > * Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140728 14:19]: > > > > > > > now that we don't need to support legacy board-files, > > > > > > > we can completely switch over to a linear irq domain > > > > > > > and make use of irq_alloc_domain_generic_chips() to > > > > > > > allocate all generic irq chips for us. > > > > > > > > > > > > This patch seems to somehow break off-idle for omap3 > > > > > > where it no longer wakes up. > > > > > > > > > > Sure your bisection is correct ? This patch just switches from legacy > > > > > irq domain to linear irq domain. > > > > > > > > Yes, I tried it a few times. Just enabling > > > > retention idle hangs too with this patch. > > > > > > > > Maybe it's omap3_prcm_irq_setup that relies on > > > > 11 + OMAP_INTC_START? There may be other such issues > > > > > > lol. > > > > > > OMAP4 has the same nonsense. > > > > made me think why (if) OMAP4 works with that same setup. Does wake from > > OFF work with OMAP4 ? > > Not without similar changes, omap4+ has the same issue.. There's a RFC > series from Nishant to fix some of this, and Tero is moving the PRCM > into a driver. > > > Anyway, here's a quick little hack to check if that's the reason for the > > regression: > > OK yeah that's along the same lines with Nishant's RFC series in thread > "[RFC PATCH 0/7] ARM: OMAP4+: PRM: minor cleanups and dt support of > interrupts" > > FYI, it did not compile, needs to include linux/of_irq.h. But yes, I might have sent the wrong version as I had that same build error and fixed it localy. > it fixes the regression for me, Also now the whole series works for > me :) good to know. What do you want to do now ? Wait for PRCM to become a driver ? Wait for Nishanth's series to get accepted ? I guess the same thing could be done for OMAP3 and AM33, then we would have a chance of having working wake from idle with the new irqchip. cheers
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> wrote: > HI, > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:04:21PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: >> * Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140729 09:36]: >> > Hi, >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:40:57AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: >> > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 08:20:52AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: >> > > > * Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140729 07:18]: >> > > > > Hi, >> > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 05:14:25AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: >> > > > > > * Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140728 14:19]: >> > > > > > > now that we don't need to support legacy board-files, >> > > > > > > we can completely switch over to a linear irq domain >> > > > > > > and make use of irq_alloc_domain_generic_chips() to >> > > > > > > allocate all generic irq chips for us. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > This patch seems to somehow break off-idle for omap3 >> > > > > > where it no longer wakes up. >> > > > > >> > > > > Sure your bisection is correct ? This patch just switches from legacy >> > > > > irq domain to linear irq domain. >> > > > >> > > > Yes, I tried it a few times. Just enabling >> > > > retention idle hangs too with this patch. >> > > > >> > > > Maybe it's omap3_prcm_irq_setup that relies on >> > > > 11 + OMAP_INTC_START? There may be other such issues >> > > >> > > lol. >> > > >> > > OMAP4 has the same nonsense. >> > >> > made me think why (if) OMAP4 works with that same setup. Does wake from >> > OFF work with OMAP4 ? >> >> Not without similar changes, omap4+ has the same issue.. There's a RFC >> series from Nishant to fix some of this, and Tero is moving the PRCM >> into a driver. >> >> > Anyway, here's a quick little hack to check if that's the reason for the >> > regression: >> >> OK yeah that's along the same lines with Nishant's RFC series in thread >> "[RFC PATCH 0/7] ARM: OMAP4+: PRM: minor cleanups and dt support of >> interrupts" >> >> FYI, it did not compile, needs to include linux/of_irq.h. But yes, > > I might have sent the wrong version as I had that same build error and > fixed it localy. > >> it fixes the regression for me, Also now the whole series works for >> me :) > > good to know. > > What do you want to do now ? Wait for PRCM to become a driver ? Wait for > Nishanth's series to get accepted ? I guess the same thing could be done > for OMAP3 and AM33, then we would have a chance of having working wake > from idle with the new irqchip. I can repost the current series as it stands now once 17-rc1 comes out (without the build failure ofcourse).. if that helps to move it out of RFC status.
Hi, On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:45:41AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> wrote: > > HI, > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:04:21PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > >> * Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140729 09:36]: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:40:57AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >> > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 08:20:52AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > >> > > > * Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140729 07:18]: > >> > > > > Hi, > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 05:14:25AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > >> > > > > > * Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140728 14:19]: > >> > > > > > > now that we don't need to support legacy board-files, > >> > > > > > > we can completely switch over to a linear irq domain > >> > > > > > > and make use of irq_alloc_domain_generic_chips() to > >> > > > > > > allocate all generic irq chips for us. > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > This patch seems to somehow break off-idle for omap3 > >> > > > > > where it no longer wakes up. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Sure your bisection is correct ? This patch just switches from legacy > >> > > > > irq domain to linear irq domain. > >> > > > > >> > > > Yes, I tried it a few times. Just enabling > >> > > > retention idle hangs too with this patch. > >> > > > > >> > > > Maybe it's omap3_prcm_irq_setup that relies on > >> > > > 11 + OMAP_INTC_START? There may be other such issues > >> > > > >> > > lol. > >> > > > >> > > OMAP4 has the same nonsense. > >> > > >> > made me think why (if) OMAP4 works with that same setup. Does wake from > >> > OFF work with OMAP4 ? > >> > >> Not without similar changes, omap4+ has the same issue.. There's a RFC > >> series from Nishant to fix some of this, and Tero is moving the PRCM > >> into a driver. > >> > >> > Anyway, here's a quick little hack to check if that's the reason for the > >> > regression: > >> > >> OK yeah that's along the same lines with Nishant's RFC series in thread > >> "[RFC PATCH 0/7] ARM: OMAP4+: PRM: minor cleanups and dt support of > >> interrupts" > >> > >> FYI, it did not compile, needs to include linux/of_irq.h. But yes, > > > > I might have sent the wrong version as I had that same build error and > > fixed it localy. > > > >> it fixes the regression for me, Also now the whole series works for > >> me :) > > > > good to know. > > > > What do you want to do now ? Wait for PRCM to become a driver ? Wait for > > Nishanth's series to get accepted ? I guess the same thing could be done > > for OMAP3 and AM33, then we would have a chance of having working wake > > from idle with the new irqchip. > > I can repost the current series as it stands now once 17-rc1 comes out > (without the build failure ofcourse).. if that helps to move it out of > RFC status. That'd be great. It would be ever greater if you could add support for OMAP3 on that too. cheers
* Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140730 09:23]: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:45:41AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> wrote: > > > HI, > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:04:21PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > >> * Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140729 09:36]: > > >> > Hi, > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:40:57AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > >> > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 08:20:52AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > >> > > > * Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140729 07:18]: > > >> > > > > Hi, > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 05:14:25AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > >> > > > > > * Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140728 14:19]: > > >> > > > > > > now that we don't need to support legacy board-files, > > >> > > > > > > we can completely switch over to a linear irq domain > > >> > > > > > > and make use of irq_alloc_domain_generic_chips() to > > >> > > > > > > allocate all generic irq chips for us. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > This patch seems to somehow break off-idle for omap3 > > >> > > > > > where it no longer wakes up. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Sure your bisection is correct ? This patch just switches from legacy > > >> > > > > irq domain to linear irq domain. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Yes, I tried it a few times. Just enabling > > >> > > > retention idle hangs too with this patch. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Maybe it's omap3_prcm_irq_setup that relies on > > >> > > > 11 + OMAP_INTC_START? There may be other such issues > > >> > > > > >> > > lol. > > >> > > > > >> > > OMAP4 has the same nonsense. > > >> > > > >> > made me think why (if) OMAP4 works with that same setup. Does wake from > > >> > OFF work with OMAP4 ? > > >> > > >> Not without similar changes, omap4+ has the same issue.. There's a RFC > > >> series from Nishant to fix some of this, and Tero is moving the PRCM > > >> into a driver. > > >> > > >> > Anyway, here's a quick little hack to check if that's the reason for the > > >> > regression: > > >> > > >> OK yeah that's along the same lines with Nishant's RFC series in thread > > >> "[RFC PATCH 0/7] ARM: OMAP4+: PRM: minor cleanups and dt support of > > >> interrupts" > > >> > > >> FYI, it did not compile, needs to include linux/of_irq.h. But yes, > > > > > > I might have sent the wrong version as I had that same build error and > > > fixed it localy. > > > > > >> it fixes the regression for me, Also now the whole series works for > > >> me :) > > > > > > good to know. > > > > > > What do you want to do now ? Wait for PRCM to become a driver ? Wait for > > > Nishanth's series to get accepted ? I guess the same thing could be done > > > for OMAP3 and AM33, then we would have a chance of having working wake > > > from idle with the new irqchip. > > > > I can repost the current series as it stands now once 17-rc1 comes out > > (without the build failure ofcourse).. if that helps to move it out of > > RFC status. > > That'd be great. It would be ever greater if you could add support for > OMAP3 on that too. Yeah sounds good to me. Tero, does that work OK for your PRCM changes? Regards, Tony
On 07/31/2014 09:28 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140730 09:23]: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:45:41AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> wrote: >>>> HI, >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:04:21PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>>>> * Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140729 09:36]: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:40:57AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 08:20:52AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>>>>>>> * Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140729 07:18]: >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 05:14:25AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>>>>>>>>> * Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140728 14:19]: >>>>>>>>>>> now that we don't need to support legacy board-files, >>>>>>>>>>> we can completely switch over to a linear irq domain >>>>>>>>>>> and make use of irq_alloc_domain_generic_chips() to >>>>>>>>>>> allocate all generic irq chips for us. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This patch seems to somehow break off-idle for omap3 >>>>>>>>>> where it no longer wakes up. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sure your bisection is correct ? This patch just switches from legacy >>>>>>>>> irq domain to linear irq domain. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, I tried it a few times. Just enabling >>>>>>>> retention idle hangs too with this patch. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe it's omap3_prcm_irq_setup that relies on >>>>>>>> 11 + OMAP_INTC_START? There may be other such issues >>>>>>> >>>>>>> lol. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OMAP4 has the same nonsense. >>>>>> >>>>>> made me think why (if) OMAP4 works with that same setup. Does wake from >>>>>> OFF work with OMAP4 ? >>>>> >>>>> Not without similar changes, omap4+ has the same issue.. There's a RFC >>>>> series from Nishant to fix some of this, and Tero is moving the PRCM >>>>> into a driver. >>>>> >>>>>> Anyway, here's a quick little hack to check if that's the reason for the >>>>>> regression: >>>>> >>>>> OK yeah that's along the same lines with Nishant's RFC series in thread >>>>> "[RFC PATCH 0/7] ARM: OMAP4+: PRM: minor cleanups and dt support of >>>>> interrupts" >>>>> >>>>> FYI, it did not compile, needs to include linux/of_irq.h. But yes, >>>> >>>> I might have sent the wrong version as I had that same build error and >>>> fixed it localy. >>>> >>>>> it fixes the regression for me, Also now the whole series works for >>>>> me :) >>>> >>>> good to know. >>>> >>>> What do you want to do now ? Wait for PRCM to become a driver ? Wait for >>>> Nishanth's series to get accepted ? I guess the same thing could be done >>>> for OMAP3 and AM33, then we would have a chance of having working wake >>>> from idle with the new irqchip. >>> >>> I can repost the current series as it stands now once 17-rc1 comes out >>> (without the build failure ofcourse).. if that helps to move it out of >>> RFC status. >> >> That'd be great. It would be ever greater if you could add support for >> OMAP3 on that too. > > Yeah sounds good to me. Tero, does that work OK for your PRCM changes? Well, this set seems to break PM. suspend-resume on omap3-beagle just hangs after this set is applied. Works fine without it with 3.16-rc5 tag. -Tero
Hi, On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:57:09AM +0300, Tero Kristo wrote: > On 07/31/2014 09:28 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > >* Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140730 09:23]: > >>Hi, > >> > >>On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:45:41AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: > >>>On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> wrote: > >>>>HI, > >>>> > >>>>On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:04:21PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > >>>>>* Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140729 09:36]: > >>>>>>Hi, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:40:57AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >>>>>>>On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 08:20:52AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > >>>>>>>>* Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140729 07:18]: > >>>>>>>>>Hi, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 05:14:25AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>* Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140728 14:19]: > >>>>>>>>>>>now that we don't need to support legacy board-files, > >>>>>>>>>>>we can completely switch over to a linear irq domain > >>>>>>>>>>>and make use of irq_alloc_domain_generic_chips() to > >>>>>>>>>>>allocate all generic irq chips for us. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>This patch seems to somehow break off-idle for omap3 > >>>>>>>>>>where it no longer wakes up. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Sure your bisection is correct ? This patch just switches from legacy > >>>>>>>>>irq domain to linear irq domain. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Yes, I tried it a few times. Just enabling > >>>>>>>>retention idle hangs too with this patch. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Maybe it's omap3_prcm_irq_setup that relies on > >>>>>>>>11 + OMAP_INTC_START? There may be other such issues > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>lol. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>OMAP4 has the same nonsense. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>made me think why (if) OMAP4 works with that same setup. Does wake from > >>>>>>OFF work with OMAP4 ? > >>>>> > >>>>>Not without similar changes, omap4+ has the same issue.. There's a RFC > >>>>>series from Nishant to fix some of this, and Tero is moving the PRCM > >>>>>into a driver. > >>>>> > >>>>>>Anyway, here's a quick little hack to check if that's the reason for the > >>>>>>regression: > >>>>> > >>>>>OK yeah that's along the same lines with Nishant's RFC series in thread > >>>>>"[RFC PATCH 0/7] ARM: OMAP4+: PRM: minor cleanups and dt support of > >>>>>interrupts" > >>>>> > >>>>>FYI, it did not compile, needs to include linux/of_irq.h. But yes, > >>>> > >>>>I might have sent the wrong version as I had that same build error and > >>>>fixed it localy. > >>>> > >>>>>it fixes the regression for me, Also now the whole series works for > >>>>>me :) > >>>> > >>>>good to know. > >>>> > >>>>What do you want to do now ? Wait for PRCM to become a driver ? Wait for > >>>>Nishanth's series to get accepted ? I guess the same thing could be done > >>>>for OMAP3 and AM33, then we would have a chance of having working wake > >>>>from idle with the new irqchip. > >>> > >>>I can repost the current series as it stands now once 17-rc1 comes out > >>>(without the build failure ofcourse).. if that helps to move it out of > >>>RFC status. > >> > >>That'd be great. It would be ever greater if you could add support for > >>OMAP3 on that too. > > > >Yeah sounds good to me. Tero, does that work OK for your PRCM changes? > > Well, this set seems to break PM. suspend-resume on omap3-beagle just hangs > after this set is applied. Works fine without it with 3.16-rc5 tag. did you apply the quick little hack to prm3xxx.c ? prcm IRQ is hardcoded to 11, once we switch to a linear irq domain, irq_base may change.
On 07/31/2014 04:49 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:57:09AM +0300, Tero Kristo wrote: >> On 07/31/2014 09:28 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>> * Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140730 09:23]: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:45:41AM -0500, Nishanth Menon wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> wrote: >>>>>> HI, >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 11:04:21PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>>>>>> * Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140729 09:36]: >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:40:57AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 08:20:52AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>>>>>>>>> * Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140729 07:18]: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 05:14:25AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> * Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [140728 14:19]: >>>>>>>>>>>>> now that we don't need to support legacy board-files, >>>>>>>>>>>>> we can completely switch over to a linear irq domain >>>>>>>>>>>>> and make use of irq_alloc_domain_generic_chips() to >>>>>>>>>>>>> allocate all generic irq chips for us. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This patch seems to somehow break off-idle for omap3 >>>>>>>>>>>> where it no longer wakes up. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sure your bisection is correct ? This patch just switches from legacy >>>>>>>>>>> irq domain to linear irq domain. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, I tried it a few times. Just enabling >>>>>>>>>> retention idle hangs too with this patch. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Maybe it's omap3_prcm_irq_setup that relies on >>>>>>>>>> 11 + OMAP_INTC_START? There may be other such issues >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> lol. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OMAP4 has the same nonsense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> made me think why (if) OMAP4 works with that same setup. Does wake from >>>>>>>> OFF work with OMAP4 ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not without similar changes, omap4+ has the same issue.. There's a RFC >>>>>>> series from Nishant to fix some of this, and Tero is moving the PRCM >>>>>>> into a driver. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Anyway, here's a quick little hack to check if that's the reason for the >>>>>>>> regression: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OK yeah that's along the same lines with Nishant's RFC series in thread >>>>>>> "[RFC PATCH 0/7] ARM: OMAP4+: PRM: minor cleanups and dt support of >>>>>>> interrupts" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> FYI, it did not compile, needs to include linux/of_irq.h. But yes, >>>>>> >>>>>> I might have sent the wrong version as I had that same build error and >>>>>> fixed it localy. >>>>>> >>>>>>> it fixes the regression for me, Also now the whole series works for >>>>>>> me :) >>>>>> >>>>>> good to know. >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you want to do now ? Wait for PRCM to become a driver ? Wait for >>>>>> Nishanth's series to get accepted ? I guess the same thing could be done >>>>>> for OMAP3 and AM33, then we would have a chance of having working wake >>>>> >from idle with the new irqchip. >>>>> >>>>> I can repost the current series as it stands now once 17-rc1 comes out >>>>> (without the build failure ofcourse).. if that helps to move it out of >>>>> RFC status. >>>> >>>> That'd be great. It would be ever greater if you could add support for >>>> OMAP3 on that too. >>> >>> Yeah sounds good to me. Tero, does that work OK for your PRCM changes? >> >> Well, this set seems to break PM. suspend-resume on omap3-beagle just hangs >> after this set is applied. Works fine without it with 3.16-rc5 tag. > > did you apply the quick little hack to prm3xxx.c ? prcm IRQ is hardcoded > to 11, once we switch to a linear irq domain, irq_base may change. Yea, with that hack it works. However, you should make that into a proper patch and add it to this series, otherwise you will be causing regressions. Just renaming that tmp into something meaningful for now should be enough for me at least. -Tero
Hi, On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 03:26:34PM +0300, Tero Kristo wrote: > >>>>>>I might have sent the wrong version as I had that same build error and > >>>>>>fixed it localy. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>it fixes the regression for me, Also now the whole series works for > >>>>>>>me :) > >>>>>> > >>>>>>good to know. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>What do you want to do now ? Wait for PRCM to become a driver ? Wait for > >>>>>>Nishanth's series to get accepted ? I guess the same thing could be done > >>>>>>for OMAP3 and AM33, then we would have a chance of having working wake > >>>>>>from idle with the new irqchip. > >>>>> > >>>>>I can repost the current series as it stands now once 17-rc1 comes out > >>>>>(without the build failure ofcourse).. if that helps to move it out of > >>>>>RFC status. > >>>> > >>>>That'd be great. It would be ever greater if you could add support for > >>>>OMAP3 on that too. > >>> > >>>Yeah sounds good to me. Tero, does that work OK for your PRCM changes? > >> > >>Well, this set seems to break PM. suspend-resume on omap3-beagle just hangs > >>after this set is applied. Works fine without it with 3.16-rc5 tag. > > > >did you apply the quick little hack to prm3xxx.c ? prcm IRQ is hardcoded > >to 11, once we switch to a linear irq domain, irq_base may change. > > Yea, with that hack it works. However, you should make that into a proper > patch and add it to this series, otherwise you will be causing regressions. can you please read the thread ? Nishanth has a proper series properly doing that for OMAP4, I asking him to add OMAP3 and respin his series without RFC.
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3.dtsi index ff953c9..c234b98 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3.dtsi @@ -97,6 +97,7 @@ prm: prm@48306000 { compatible = "ti,omap3-prm"; reg = <0x48306000 0x4000>; + interrupts = <11>; prm_clocks: clocks { #address-cells = <1>; diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c index 25e8b82..3d11377 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c @@ -242,6 +242,11 @@ void omap_prcm_irq_complete(void) prcm_irq_setup->restore_irqen(prcm_irq_setup->saved_mask); } +static struct of_device_id tmp[] = { + { .compatible = "ti,omap3-prm" }, + { } +}; + /** * omap_prcm_register_chain_handler - initializes the prcm chained interrupt * handler based on provided parameters @@ -254,17 +259,24 @@ void omap_prcm_irq_complete(void) */ int omap_prcm_register_chain_handler(struct omap_prcm_irq_setup *irq_setup) { + struct device_node *node; int nr_regs; u32 mask[OMAP_PRCM_MAX_NR_PENDING_REG]; int offset, i; + int irq; struct irq_chip_generic *gc; struct irq_chip_type *ct; if (!irq_setup) return -EINVAL; + irq = irq_setup->irq; nr_regs = irq_setup->nr_regs; + node = of_find_matching_node(NULL, tmp); + if (node) + irq = of_irq_get(node, 0); + if (prcm_irq_setup) { pr_err("PRCM: already initialized; won't reinitialize\n"); return -EINVAL; @@ -298,7 +310,7 @@ int omap_prcm_register_chain_handler(struct omap_prcm_irq_setup *irq_setup) 1 << (offset & 0x1f); } - irq_set_chained_handler(irq_setup->irq, omap_prcm_irq_handler); + irq_set_chained_handler(irq, omap_prcm_irq_handler); irq_setup->base_irq = irq_alloc_descs(-1, 0, irq_setup->nr_regs * 32, 0);