Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-87356-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240228020040.25815-1-qingliang.li@mediatek.com>
 <1390e743-2216-4435-b2ef-7d92a55605b1@ti.com> <0c1e972cf506b22cb1de73c8509bf2b917c0806b.camel@mediatek.com>
In-Reply-To: <0c1e972cf506b22cb1de73c8509bf2b917c0806b.camel@mediatek.com>
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 2024 20:31:20 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hPBbri9Y+VPqA8iisWg+fyZXouLnP=DQLN4j+W0pq6Pg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: wakeirq: fix wake irq warning in system suspend stage
To: =?UTF-8?B?UWluZ2xpYW5nIExpICjpu47mmbTkuq4p?= <Qingliang.Li@mediatek.com>
Cc: "johan+linaro@kernel.org" <johan+linaro@kernel.org>, "d-gole@ti.com" <d-gole@ti.com>, 
	"pavel@ucw.cz" <pavel@ucw.cz>, "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, 
	"tony@atomide.com" <tony@atomide.com>, "len.brown@intel.com" <len.brown@intel.com>, 
	"rafael@kernel.org" <rafael@kernel.org>, "matthias.bgg@gmail.com" <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>, 
	"angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com" <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>, 
	=?UTF-8?B?QXhlIFlhbmcgKOadqOejiik=?= <Axe.Yang@mediatek.com>, 
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, 
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 
	"linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org" <linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org>, 
	"linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 9:33=E2=80=AFAM Qingliang Li (=E9=BB=8E=E6=99=B4=E4=
=BA=AE)
<Qingliang.Li@mediatek.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2024-02-28 at 11:34 +0530, Dhruva Gole wrote:
> >
> > External email : Please do not click links or open attachments until
> > you have verified the sender or the content.
> >  Hi,
> >
> > On 28/02/24 07:30, Qingliang Li wrote:
> > > When driver registers the wake irq with reverse enable ordering,
> > > the wake irq will be re-enabled when entering system suspend,
> > triggering
> > > an 'Unbalanced enable for IRQ xxx' warning. The wake irq will be
> > > enabled in both dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete() and
> > dev_pm_arm_wake_irq()
> > >
> > > To fix this issue, complete the setting of
> > WAKE_IRQ_DEDICATED_ENABLED flag
> > > in dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete() to avoid redundant irq
> > enablement.
> >
> >
> > Just trying to understand, why not in dev_pm_arm_wake_irq ?
> > Is it cuz it's called much after dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete ?
> > Not sure what's the exact call order, but I am assuming
> > dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete is more of a runtime thing and
> > dev_pm_arm_wake_irq happens finally at system suspend?
>
> You are right, the involvement of 'dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete' is
> due to the driver selecting 'pm_runtime_force_suspend' as the callback
> function for system suspend. In this scenario, the call sequence during
> system suspend is as follows:
> dpm_suspend_start -> dpm_run_callback -> pm_runtime_force_suspend ->
> dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_check/complete
> suspend_enter -> dpm_suspend_noirq -> dev_pm_arm_wake_irq
>
> Based on the above, if the driver (i) chooses pm_runtime_force_suspend
> as the system suspend callback function and (ii) registers wake irq
> with reverse enable ordering, the wake irq will be enabled twice during
> system suspend.

It would be good to put the above information into the patch
changelog, as it actually explains the problem.

Thanks!