lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Mar]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 5/6] watchdog: at91sam9: request the irq with IRQF_NO_SUSPEND
On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 12:17:23 +0100
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> wrote:

> Hi Boris,

^ Mark,

I'm suffering from a dual personality disorder :-)

>
> On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:53:08 +0000
> Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Boris,
> >
> > I'd missed the fact that this was for SW watchdog as opposed to HW
> > watchdog, which may explain my confusion.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > err = request_irq(wdt->irq, wdt_interrupt,
> > > > > - IRQF_SHARED | IRQF_IRQPOLL,
> > > > > + IRQF_SHARED | IRQF_IRQPOLL |
> > > > > + IRQF_NO_SUSPEND,
> > > >
> > > > I'm a little confused by this. What happens if the watchdog fires when
> > > > we're actually in the suspended state (when IRQF_NO_SUSPEND interrupts
> > > > aren't guaranteed to be delivered).
> > >
> > > It reboot the system.
> >
> > Is the timer we use to ping the watchdog guaranted to result in a wakeup
> > before an interrupt will be triggered? If so, then I think we're ok.
>
> It should be (I don't recall exactly what the logic is, but it's at
> least half the watchdog time limit).
>
> >
> > If not, then don't we need to clear a potentially pending watchdog irq
> > at resume time so at to not immediately reboot the machine? I couldn't
> > see any logic to that effect in the driver.
>
> That depends on what we want.
> If we want the watchdog to be inactive when entering suspend, then we
> shouldn't reboot the machine when receiving a watchdog irq while the
> system is suspended.
> ITOH, with the hardware mode (reset handled by the watchdog IP) you
> can't disable the watchdog when entering suspend, so I would expect the
> same behavior for the SW mode.
>
> >
> > Regardless, if the only reason we care about taking the interrupt during
> > the suspend/resume phases is due to the timer sharing the IRQ, then
> > shouldn't we be using IRQF_COND_SUSPEND?
>
> I'm not sure, but IMO this interrupt should be flagged as NO_SUSPEND,
> because it's here to reset the system (even if it is suspended).
> If you flag the irq line as COND_SUSPEND, and atmel decide to give this
> peripheral its own IRQ line (on new SoCs), then your watchdog will not
> reboot the system when it is suspended.
> Another solution would be to support wakeup for this peripheral and
> delay the system reboot until it has resumed.
>
> Anyway, if we decide to go for the wakeup approach, I'd prefer to post
> another patch on top of this one.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Boris
>
>



--
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-03-05 12:41    [W:2.992 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site