On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 12:26 AM Stephen Boyd <[email protected]> wrote: > > Quoting Rafael J. Wysocki (2019-07-30 15:17:55) > > On Tuesday, July 30, 2019 8:48:09 PM CEST Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > Quoting Tri Vo (2019-07-30 11:39:34) > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:46 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 4:45 AM Tri Vo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > - Device registering the wakeup source is now the parent of the > > > > > > wakeup source. > > > > > > Updated wakeup_source_register()'s signature and its callers > > > > > > accordingly. > > > > > > > > > > And I really don't like these changes. Especially having "wakeup" > > > > > twice in the path. > > > > > > > > I can trim it down to /sys/class/wakeup/<ID>/. Does that sound good? > > > > > > Using the same prefix for the class and the device name is quite common. > > > For example, see the input, regulator, tty, tpm, remoteproc, hwmon, > > > extcon classes. I'd prefer it was left as /sys/class/wakeup/wakeupN. The > > > class name could be changed to wakeup_source perhaps (i.e. > > > /sys/class/wakeup_source/wakeupN)? > > > > Alternatively /sys/class/wakeup/wsN > > > > Or /sys/class/wakeup/eventN? It's your bikeshed to paint.
So actually the underlying problem here is that device_wakeup_enable() tries to register a wakeup source and then attach it to the device to avoid calling possibly sleeping functions under a spinlock. However, it should be possible to call wakeup_source_create(name) first, then attach the wakeup source to the device (after checking for presence), and then invoke wakeup_source_add() (after dropping the lock). If the wakeup source virtual device registration is done in wakeup_source_add(), that should avoid the problem altogether without having to introduce extra complexity.
