[PATCH] i2c: exynos5: Properly use the "noirq" variants of suspend/resume
tomasz.figa at gmail.com
Mon Jun 23 15:31:37 PDT 2014
On 24.06.2014 00:27, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Kevin Hilman <khilman at linaro.org> wrote:
>> Doug Anderson <dianders at chromium.org> writes:
>>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I'm not sure noirq is going to work correctly, at least not with current
>>>> callbacks. I can see a call to clk_prepare_enable() there which needs to
>>>> acquire a mutex.
>>> Nice catch, thanks! :)
>>> OK, looking at that now. Interestingly this doesn't seem to cause us
>>> problems in our ChromeOS 3.8 tree. I just tried enabling:
>>> ...and confirmed that I got it on right:
>>> # zgrep -i atomic /proc/config.gz
>>> I can suspend/resume with no problems. My bet is that it works fine because:
>>> * resume_noirq is not considered "atomic" in the sense enforced by
>>> CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP (at least not in 3.8--I haven't tried on
>> The reason is because "noirq" in the suspend/resume path actually means
>> no *device* IRQs for that specific device.
>> It's often assumed that the "noirq" callbacks are called with *all*
>> interrupts disabled, but that's not the case. Only the IRQs for that
>> specific device are disabled when its noirq callbacks run.
> Ah, so even with my fix of moving to noirq we could still be broken if
> the system decided to enable interrupts for the device before the i2c
> controller get resumed then we'd still be SOL.
> ...oh, but if it matches probe order then maybe we're guaranteed for
> that not to happen? We know that we will probe the i2c bus before the
> devices on it, right?
If the mentioned device is a child of the I2C controller then the
parent-child relation determines the order. Otherwise (e.g. another,
non-I2C interrupt source that just triggers some operation on an I2C
device like voltage regulator) we're doomed. ;)
More information about the linux-arm-kernel