lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 05/12] PCI: aardvark: add suspend to RAM support
Hi Rafael, Stephen,

"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote on Mon, 03 Dec 2018
23:00:20 +0100:

> On Monday, December 3, 2018 4:38:46 PM CET Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > Hi Lorenzo,
> >
> > Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> wrote on Mon, 3 Dec 2018
> > 10:27:08 +0000:
> >
> > > [+Rafael, Sudeep]
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 03:18:24PM +0100, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > > > Add suspend and resume callbacks. The priority of these are
> > > > "_noirq()", to workaround early access to the registers done by the
> > > > PCI core through the ->read()/->write() callbacks at resume time.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c
> > > > index 108b3f15c410..7ecf1ac4036b 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/pci-aardvark.c
> > > > @@ -1108,6 +1108,55 @@ static int advk_pcie_setup_clk(struct advk_pcie *pcie)
> > > > return ret;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +static int __maybe_unused advk_pcie_suspend(struct device *dev)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct advk_pcie *pcie = dev_get_drvdata(dev);
> > > > +
> > > > + advk_pcie_disable_phy(pcie);
> > > > +
> > > > + clk_disable_unprepare(pcie->clk);
> > >
> > > I have noticed it is common practice, still, I would like to check whether
> > > it is allowed to call functions that may sleep in a NOIRQ suspend/resume
> > > callback ?
> >
> > You are right this is weird. I double checked and for instance,
> > pcie-mediatek.c, pci-tegra.c and pci-imx6.c do the exact same thing. There are
> > probably other cases where drivers call functions that may sleep from a NOIRQ
> > context. I am interested to know if this is valid and if not, what is the
> > alternative?
> >
>
> Yes, it is valid. _noirq means that the high-level action handlers will not be
> invoked for interrupts occurring during that period, but that doesn't apply to
> timer interrupts.
>
> IOW, don't expect *your* IRQ handler to be invoked then (if this is not a timer
> IRQ), but you can sleep.
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>

Thank you both for the enlightenment.


Thanks,
Miquèl

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-03 23:20    [W:0.114 / U:1.300 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site