[PATCH v4 15/21] ARM: exynos4/5: convert pmu wakeup to stacked domains

[Marc Zyngier]

Hi Pankaj,

On 2015-01-20 07:42, Pankaj Dubey wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> On Monday 19 January 2015 03:14 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Exynos has been (ab)using the gic_arch_extn to provide
>> wakeup from suspend, and it makes a lot of sense to convert
>> this code to use stacked domains instead.
>>
>> This patch does just this, updating the DT files to actually
>> reflect what the HW provides.
>>
>> BIG FAT WARNING: because the DTs were so far lying by not
>> exposing the fact that the PMU block is actually the first
>> interrupt controller in the chain for RTC, kernels with this patch
>> applied wont have any suspend-resume facility when booted
>> with old DTs, and old kernels with updated DTs may not even boot.
>>
>> Also, I stronly suspect that there is more than two wake-up
>> interrupts on these platforms, but I leave it to the maintainers
>> to fix their mess.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com>
>> ---
>
> I tested this patch series on SMDK5250 board.
>
> With the addition of "#interrupt-cells = <3>;"in PMU device node S2R
> is working on Exynos5250 based SMDK board.

Thanks for letting me know. Can I add your Tested-by tag on this?

>>   arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4.dtsi    |   4 ++
>>   arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi |   4 ++
>>   arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420.dtsi |   4 ++
>>   arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c     |  14 ++---
>>   arch/arm/mach-exynos/suspend.c    | 122 
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>   5 files changed, 129 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4.dtsi 
>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4.dtsi
>> index b8168f1..0e7d74e 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4.dtsi
>> @@ -141,6 +141,9 @@
>>   	pmu_system_controller: system-controller at 10020000 {
>>   		compatible = "samsung,exynos4210-pmu", "syscon";
>>   		reg = <0x10020000 0x4000>;
>> +		interrupt-controller;
>> +		#interrupt-cells = <3>;
>> +		interrupt-parent = <&gic>;
>>   	};
>>
>>   	dsi_0: dsi at 11C80000 {
>> @@ -253,6 +256,7 @@
>>   	rtc at 10070000 {
>>   		compatible = "samsung,s3c6410-rtc";
>>   		reg = <0x10070000 0x100>;
>> +		interrupt-parent = <&pmu_system_controller>;
>>   		interrupts = <0 44 0>, <0 45 0>;
>>   		clocks = <&clock CLK_RTC>;
>>   		clock-names = "rtc";
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi 
>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi
>> index 0a229fc..1dc5f6b 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi
>> @@ -194,6 +194,9 @@
>>   		clock-names = "clkout16";
>>   		clocks = <&clock CLK_FIN_PLL>;
>>   		#clock-cells = <1>;
>> +		interrupt-controller;
>> +		#interrupt-cells = <3>;
>> +		interrupt-parent = <&gic>;
>>   	};
>>
>>   	sysreg_system_controller: syscon at 10050000 {
>> @@ -230,6 +233,7 @@
>>   	rtc: rtc at 101E0000 {
>>   		clocks = <&clock CLK_RTC>;
>>   		clock-names = "rtc";
>> +		interrupt-parent = <&pmu_system_controller>;
>>   		status = "disabled";
>>   	};
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420.dtsi 
>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420.dtsi
>> index 517e50f..35ecd36 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420.dtsi
>> @@ -309,6 +309,7 @@
>>   	rtc: rtc at 101E0000 {
>>   		clocks = <&clock CLK_RTC>;
>>   		clock-names = "rtc";
>> +		interrupt-parent = <&pmu_system_controller>;
>>   		status = "disabled";
>>   	};
>>
>> @@ -748,6 +749,9 @@
>>   		clock-names = "clkout16";
>>   		clocks = <&clock CLK_FIN_PLL>;
>>   		#clock-cells = <1>;
>> +		interrupt-controller;
>> +		#interrupt-cells = <3>;
>> +		interrupt-parent = <&gic>;
>>   	};
>>
>>   	sysreg_system_controller: syscon at 10050000 {
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c 
>> b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>> index c13d083..e417fdc 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>> @@ -175,16 +175,15 @@ static void __init exynos_init_io(void)
>>   	exynos_map_io();
>>   }
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Apparently, these SoCs are not able to wake-up from suspend 
>> using
>> + * the PMU. Too bad. Should they suddenly become capable of such a
>> + * feat, the matches below should be moved to suspend.c.
>> + */
>>   static const struct of_device_id exynos_dt_pmu_match[] = {
>>   	{ .compatible = "samsung,exynos3250-pmu" },
>
> As I know Exynos3250, S2R support has been added in kgene/for-next
> and should work as expected so we may need to do update
> "exynos_wkup_irq" for exynos3250 and remove it from this list, so 
> that
> it's S2R should not break. I am adding concern engineer (+cc: Chanwoo
> Choi) in the loop.

That would have to be an additional patch, unless we decide to delay 
this series.

Thanks,

         M.
-- 
Fast, cheap, reliable. Pick two.