Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Lack of suspend/resume/shutdown ordering between GPIO providers and consumers | From | Grygorii Strashko <> | Date | Wed, 25 Apr 2018 13:06:42 -0500 |
| |
On 04/24/2018 05:58 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote: > Hi Linus, Rafael, all > > Our GPIO controller driver: gpio-brcmstb.c has a shutdown callback which > gets invoked when the system is brought into poweroff aka S5. So far so > good, except that we also wish to use gpio_keys.c as a possible wake-up > source, so we may have a number of GPIO pins declared as gpio-keys that > allow the system to wake-up from deep slumber. > > Recently we noticed that we could easily get into a state where > gpio-brcmstb.c::brcmstb_gpio_shutdown() gets called first, and then > gpio_keys.c::gpio_keys_suspend() gets called later, which is too late to > have the enable_irq_wake() call do anything sensible since we have > suspend its parent interrupt controller before. This is completely > expected unfortunately because these two drivers are both platform > device instances with no connection to one another except via Device > Tree and the use of the GPIOLIB APIs.
You can take a look at device_link_add() and Co.
But it's little bit unclear what exactly you have issue with: - shutdown - suspend
above are different (at least as it was before) and gpio-brcmstb.c brcmstb_gpio_shutdown() should not be called as part of suspend !? may be you mean brcmstb_gpio_suspend?
-- regards, -grygorii
| |