Subject: Re: [v2] rsi: sdio suspend and resume support
To: Amitkumar Karwar <amitkarwar@gmail.com>,
        Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com>
References: <1505998288-2041-1-git-send-email-amitkarwar@gmail.com>
 <CAFqt6zYY2WuwU+kQ=HmS5284CspyxF+EFm_jiysCQviSvegC1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEhWJF=eTwUA59VZBoPhxsBvpCm2eM_j1An--Ce_d0XLt8uVFw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@codeaurora.org>,
        linux-wireless <linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org>,
        Amitkumar Karwar <amit.karwar@redpinesignals.com>,
        Prameela Rani Garnepudi <prameela.j04cs@gmail.com>,
        Karun Eagalapati <karun256@gmail.com>
From: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>
Message-ID: <59C4D1C6.1040601@broadcom.com> (sfid-20170922_110447_192638_3E86A6F3)
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2017 11:03:02 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEhWJF=eTwUA59VZBoPhxsBvpCm2eM_j1An--Ce_d0XLt8uVFw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On 9/21/2017 4:32 PM, Amitkumar Karwar wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Amitkumar Karwar <amitkarwar@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> From: Karun Eagalapati <karun256@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> SDIO suspend and resume handlers are implemented and verified
>>> that device works after suspend/resume cycle.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Karun Eagalapati <karun256@gmail.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Amitkumar Karwar <amit.karwar@redpinesignals.com>
>>> ---
>>> v2: Replaced never ending while loop with 20msecs loop(Kalle Valo)
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/net/wireless/rsi/rsi_91x_sdio.c | 128 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>   drivers/net/wireless/rsi/rsi_sdio.h     |   2 +
>>>   2 files changed, 126 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/rsi/rsi_91x_sdio.c b/drivers/net/wireless/rsi/rsi_91x_sdio.c
>>> index 8d3a483..b3f8006 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/rsi/rsi_91x_sdio.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/rsi/rsi_91x_sdio.c
>>> @@ -1059,16 +1059,136 @@ static void rsi_disconnect(struct sdio_func *pfunction)

[...]

>>>   static int rsi_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>>   {
>>> -       /* Not yet implemented */
>>> -       return -ENOSYS;
>>> +       int ret;
>>> +       struct sdio_func *pfunction = dev_to_sdio_func(dev);
>>> +       struct rsi_hw *adapter = sdio_get_drvdata(pfunction);
>>> +       struct rsi_common *common;
>>> +
>>> +       if (!adapter) {
>>> +               rsi_dbg(ERR_ZONE, "Device is not ready\n");
>>> +               return -ENODEV;
>>> +       }
>>> +       common = adapter->priv;
>>> +       rsi_sdio_disable_interrupts(pfunction);
>>> +
>>> +       ret = rsi_set_sdio_pm_caps(adapter);
>>> +       if (ret)
>>> +               rsi_dbg(INFO_ZONE,
>>> +                       "Setting power management caps failed\n");
>>> +       common->fsm_state = FSM_CARD_NOT_READY;
>>> +
>>> +       return 0;
>>
>> I think it should be return ret if rsi_set_sdio_pm_caps() fails.
>
> This is intentional. We don't want to return error and abort system
> suspend operation due to this.

Has it been verified that powering down the SDIO bus during the suspend 
works for you device. In other words  does the claim in the commit 
message apply to a sdio host controller not supporting the KEEP_POWER 
flag as well?

Regards,
Arend