[PATCH v2 1/1] irqchip: exynos-combiner: Save IRQ enable set on suspend
sudeep.holla at arm.com
Mon Jun 15 01:52:20 PDT 2015
On 12/06/15 21:17, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas
> <javier.martinez at collabora.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> registers are lost assuming the combiner was powered down, even the
>>>> status register will be lost and you will not know exactly the wakeup
>>>> reason right ?
>>> Good question, I didn't find in the documentation I've access to that
>>> this happen but just found through experimentation that the IRQ enable
>>> set register values are lost after a resume and that saving/restoring
>>> the values makes the interrupts to be triggered again.
>> I'll share here too the findings I mentioned over IRC. As you suggested I
>> add some printouts and noticed that the ISTRn (Interrupt Status) registers
>> values are indeed preserved on resume so I can know for example if the
>> wakeup source was the power gpio-key or cros_ec keyboard. I've checked the
>> values of the registers against the Exynos manual and they corresponds to
>> the interrupt sources in each case so the values are correct.
>> So as you said, it seems that is not that the IP block loses its state on
>> S2R but that something is blindly writing the IESRn (Interrupt Enable Set)
> I'll postulate an alternate theory here. You can tell me if you buy
> it or if you think I've been out in the sun too long.
> Let's say that the interrupt combiner's status registers show the raw
> status as asserted by whatever is hooked up to the combiner. This
> means that even if the combiner got reset we could still read the
> status register and get the status of the source. Imagine that the
> combiner is like a GPIO bank. If you reset the GPIO bank, you'll lose
> all kinds of config (input vs. output, edge interrupt status, maybe
> pulls, etc). ...but you can still read the state asserted by an
> external source, right?
Right, this makes sense. I assumed status was latched output and might
be lost. But that's wrong assumption I believe.
> In this case the combiner's interrupt source is 'EINT 11'. ...and I'm
> pretty sure that the controller managine 'EINT 11' _doesn't_ lose
> power across suspend/resume...
> I'll further bolster my theory by saying that _almost nothing_ in the
> exynos keeps power across suspend/resume. The UART? Nope. The GPIO
> controllers? Nuh-uh. The GIC? Sorry, but no. The clock tree? It
> might be nice, but you're out of luck. ...so it would make me
> terribly surprised to see the combiner keep power.
Interesting even GIC loses power ? I would be interested in knowing more
details as who will wake up the system then. Is the wakeup source
offloaded to some external power controller ?
>> To reduce the possible s/w components that could be doing this, I booted a
>> signed FIT image directly using the RO U-Boot instead of chain loading a
>> mainline nv-uboot. In this configuration I've the same issue so it seems
>> that if something is zeroing those registers on S2R, this can't be changed
>> without void the warranty of these machines.
>> I also looked at the downstream ChromiumOS v3.8 tree  and I see that
>> they have a very similar solution than my patch, the IESRn are also saved
>> but using a notifier for the CPU_PM_ENTER and CPU_PM_EXIT events instead
>> or registering a syscore ops but the idea is basically the same.
> Yup, you can see where kliegs added it in
> <https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/c/27964/>. As per the
> comments in that CL, this was probably broken in:
> 063bd6f ARM: EXYNOS: Remove GIC save & restore function
>> I have to take a look to the U-boot that is shipped on the device, I think
>> the correct branch is  but I'm not sure if that is the correct one.
> It is the right one. If U-Boot were touching this (which would
> greatly surprise me) it should be here:
> ...and it's not. Doing a grep for '10440000' (the combiner base
> address) doesn't find anything in U-Boot either, which makes it less
> likely. ...and it's even less likely since the amount of code that is
> in U-Boot that runs at resume time is a very small subset and I'm
> fairly familiar with it and I would have remembered it touching the
Yes, I did search and find nothing, so definitely not U-Boot if I am
looking at the right source.
> It's POSSIBLE that the internal ROM in exynos is clobbering this, but
> as per above it seems crazy unlikely and I think it's just losing
Agreed, not because I believe ROM code are not crazy but because of the
theory you have provided above :)
More information about the linux-arm-kernel