Hi dmitry,
On 04/04/2017 06:41 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 01:53:53PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
+ others
On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 11:43:36AM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Sun, Apr 02, 2017 at 08:07:39AM +0800, Jeffy Chen wrote:
Report wakeup events when process events.
Signed-off-by: Jeffy Chen <jeffy.c...@rock-chips.com>
---
Changes in v2:
Remove unneeded dts changes.
drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c | 9 +++++++++
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c
b/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c
index 6a250d6..a93d55f 100644
--- a/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c
+++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/cros_ec_keyb.c
@@ -286,6 +286,9 @@ static int cros_ec_keyb_work(struct notifier_block *nb,
return NOTIFY_DONE;
}
+ if (device_may_wakeup(ckdev->dev))
+ pm_wakeup_event(ckdev->dev, 0);
+
return NOTIFY_OK;
}
@@ -632,6 +635,12 @@ static int cros_ec_keyb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
return err;
}
+ err = device_init_wakeup(dev, 1);
I would prefer if we did not mark cros_ec devices as wakeup sources
unconditionally. Your original patch series was better (except it failed
to parse the "wakeup-source" property that you introduced.
I'm curious, why is this keyboard device different than any other keyboard
device? I see several other drivers in drivers/input/keyboard/ that do an
unconditional 'device_init_wakeup(..., 1)'. Keyboards tend to be wakeup
devices...
If we did something before it does not mean we should continue doing
this forever. I think providing an option to mark device as wakeup
capable should be left to the platform.
Also, what's the idea behind sub-devices vs. the main cros-ec device reporting
wakeups? Right now, we have this in drivers/mfd/cros_ec.c:
static irqreturn_t ec_irq_thread(int irq, void *data)
{
struct cros_ec_device *ec_dev = data;
int ret;
if (device_may_wakeup(ec_dev->dev))
pm_wakeup_event(ec_dev->dev, 0);
ret = cros_ec_get_next_event(ec_dev);
if (ret > 0)
blocking_notifier_call_chain(&ec_dev->event_notifier,
0, ec_dev);
return IRQ_HANDLED;
}
But now, we're going to start double-reporting wakeups? Is that
expected?
No, and not always (below).
I think we have a similar overlap with the RTC driver (which is being
upstreamed now?):
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/2/14/658
[PATCH v3 3/4] rtc: cros-ec: add cros-ec-rtc driver.
except that also goes through the trouble of enabling/disabling wakeup for the
EC IRQ. It seems to me (though I haven't dug in thoroughly) like the
main MFD shouldn't really be doing the wakeup reporting at all, and we
should depend on the sub-devices to do this. (i.e., the current patchset
is a step in the right direction, but it's not 100%.)
Anyway, I could be wrong about the above, but I think we should make
sure there's a consistent answer across the drivers tree.
Hm, it appears we have quite a mess. SPI-based EC declares entire EC as
wakeup source (unconditionally I must add; we do mention "wakeup-source"
in binding document at least). I2C-based EC does not call
device_init_wakeup() at all, presumably that is what caused the calls to
be added into sub-drivers.
We need to resolve this one way or another. You probably do not want to
wake up any time you move your device (accelerometer or other sensors),
so I would try to move this property into individual devices, and try to
come up with a reasonable binding.
right, we do have a issue about gyro sensor break
suspend(https://partnerissuetracker.corp.google.com/issues/36705709)
it would be better if we move wakeup codes to sub drivers. and if you do
this, it would also solve the original issue of this patchset ;)
Thanks.
