Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 16:28:31 -0700
From: Brian Norris <computersforpeace@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Florian Fainelli <fainelli@broadcom.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Gregory Fong <gregory.0xf0@gmail.com>,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@gmail.com>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] genirq: add chip_{suspend,resume} PM support to
 irq_chip
Message-ID: <20150722232831.GC8876@google.com>
References: <20150619224123.GL4917@ld-irv-0074>
 <1434756403-379-1-git-send-email-computersforpeace@gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1506201605290.4107@nanos>
 <55AE8E5D.8020700@gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1507212316530.18576@nanos>
 <55AEB91C.1020202@broadcom.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1507212343270.18576@nanos>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1507212343270.18576@nanos>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2416
Lines: 53

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 11:58:01PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jul 2015, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> > On 21/07/15 14:23, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > I just read back on the problem report which was mentioned in the
> > > changelog:
> > > 
> > > "It's not a problem with patch 7, exactly, it's a problem with the
> > >  irqchip driver which handles the UART interrupt mask (irq-bcm7120-l2.c).
> > >  The problem is that with a trimmed down device tree (such as the one
> > >  found at arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm7445-bcm97445svmb.dtb), none of the child
> > >  interrupts of the 'irq0_intc' node are described -- we don't have device
> > >  tree nodes for them yet -- but we still require saving and restoring the
> > >  forwarding mask (see 'brcm,int-fwd-mask') in order for the UART
> > >  interrupts to continue operating."
> > > 
> > > So you are trying to work around a flaw in the device tree by adding
> > > random callbacks to the core kernel?
> > 
> > Not quite, you could have your interrupt controller node declared in
> > Device Tree, but have no "interrupts" property referencing it because:
> > 
> > - the hardware is just not there, but you inherit a common Device Tree
> > skleten (*.dtsi)
> > - you could have Device Tree overlays which may or may not be loaded as
> > a result of finding expansion boards etc...
> 
> So if no hardware is there which uses any of those interrupts, then
> WHY is it a problem at all?

This particular badly-designed L2 interrupt controller not only
configures its own constituent interrupts, but it controls whether some
interrupts are seen at level 1 (e.g., GIC), rather than L2. So some
interrupts are affected, but not owned, by this hardware (and driver).

> If it's a requirement that these registers must be restored (once, not
> per irq), then I can see that it'd be nice to do that from the core.

Right, they must be restored for the whole chip.

> Though that core suspend/resume function is generic chip specific. So
> it does not make any sense to force it into struct irq_chip because we
> have no core infrastructure to deal with it.

Right, and that's what v2 does.

Thanks for the comments.

Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/