lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: Lack of suspend/resume/shutdown ordering between GPIO providers and consumers
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 5:58 PM, Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Linus, Rafael, all
>
> Our GPIO controller driver: gpio-brcmstb.c has a shutdown callback which
> gets invoked when the system is brought into poweroff aka S5. So far so
> good, except that we also wish to use gpio_keys.c as a possible wake-up
> source, so we may have a number of GPIO pins declared as gpio-keys that
> allow the system to wake-up from deep slumber.
>
> Recently we noticed that we could easily get into a state where
> gpio-brcmstb.c::brcmstb_gpio_shutdown() gets called first, and then
> gpio_keys.c::gpio_keys_suspend() gets called later, which is too late to
> have the enable_irq_wake() call do anything sensible since we have
> suspend its parent interrupt controller before. This is completely
> expected unfortunately because these two drivers are both platform
> device instances with no connection to one another except via Device
> Tree and the use of the GPIOLIB APIs.
>
> First solution is to make sure that gpio-keys nodes are declared in
> Device Tree *before* the GPIO controller. This works because Device Tree
> nodes are probed in the order in which they are declared in Device Tree
> and that directly influences the order in which platform devices are
> created. Problem with that is that this is easy to miss and it may not
> work with overlays, kexec reconstructing DT etc. etc.

I'm going to make of_platform_populate randomize the order it creates devices...

> Another possible solution would be have the GPIO controller nodes have
> the GPIO consumers nodes such as gpio-keys, gpio-leds etc., and that
> would allow the Linux device driver model to create an appropriate
> child/parent relationship. This would unfortunately require Device Tree
> changes everywhere to make that consistent, and it would be a special
> case, because not all GPIO consumers are eligible as child nodes of
> their parent GPIO controller, there are plenty of other consumers that
> are not suitable for being moved under a parent GPIO controller node.
> This would also mean that we need to "probe" GPIO controller nodes to
> populate their child nodes (e.g: of_platform_bus_populate).
>
> I am thinking a more generic solution might involve some more complex
> tracking of the provider <-> consumer, but there is room for breakage.

That's what device connections are for. It probably just needs the
GPIO core to create the links. (but I've not looked into it at all).

Rob

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-25 17:01    [W:0.087 / U:1.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site