On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 12:59 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <raf...@kernel.org> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hans...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 9 November 2017 at 10:02, Geert Uytterhoeven <ge...@linux-m68k.org> wrote: >>> Hi Ulf, >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hans...@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> On 8 November 2017 at 16:41, Geert Uytterhoeven <ge...@linux-m68k.org> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Ulf Hansson <ulf.hans...@linaro.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> The generic problem this series is trying to solve, is that for some bus >>>>>> types >>>>>> and PM domains, it's not sufficient to only check the return value from >>>>>> device_may_wakeup(), to fully understand how to treat the device during >>>>>> system >>>>>> suspend. >>>>>> >>>>>> One particular case that suffers from this, is the generic PM domain >>>>>> (aka genpd) >>>>>> and that is taken care of in the final change in this series. >>>>>> >>>>>> The special case this series address, is to enable drivers to instruct >>>>>> bus types >>>>>> and PM domains, that the device need to stay powered in case wakeup >>>>>> signals >>>>>> is enabled for it. >>> >>>>>> Geert Uytterhoeven, has been working on some related problems for some >>>>>> Renesas >>>>>> SoCs [1], to be able to properly configure WakeOnLAN, for some ethernet >>>>>> devices/drivers, which are used together with genpd. My intent is that >>>>>> this >>>>>> series enables a solution for those problems. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] >>>>>> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-renesas-soc/msg19319.html >>>>> >>>>> While your new WAKEUP_POWERED definitely serves a purpose, I don't think >>>>> it's the right solution for the Renesas SoCs. I can just set the recently >>>>> added flag GENPD_FLAG_ACTIVE_WAKEUP in all Renesas clock/power domain >>>>> drivers to fix the issue for all Renesas drivers. After all, all devices >>>>> in >>>>> the clock/power domain must be kept enabled if they're a wakeup source, or >>>>> part of the wakeup path. >>>> >>>> Right, that would work! However, to me, I don't think it's fine grained >>>> enough. >>>> >>>> Let's take the Ethernet device/driver using WoL as an example, similar >>>> to your cases. >>>> >>>> First, let's assume device_may_wakeup() returns true, meaning that the >>>> Ethernet device is wakeup capable and that userspace has requested >>>> wakeup to be enabled. >>>> >>>> Then we have three scenarios to consider when the Ethernet driver >>>> becomes suspended (typically when its ->suspend() callback gets >>>> invoked). >>>> 1) The Ethernet interface is down. >>>> 2) The Ethernet interface is up, but no connection established. >>>> 3) The Ethernet interface is up, connection established. >>>> >>>> By following your approach, using GENPD_FLAG_ACTIVE_WAKEUP, would mean >>>> that we can't distinguish between any of the the scenarios above, but >>>> instead always keep the Ethernet device powered on and thus the PM >>>> domain also. >>>> >>>> In the more fine grained solution, we can change the Ethernet driver >>>> to consider under what scenario it's being suspended. For 1) and 2), >>>> there is no need to keep the Ethernet device being powered, but >>>> instead only enable WoL in 3) - via also using the WAKEUP_POWERED >>>> flag. >>> >>> The Ethernet driver can still call device_set_wakeup_enable(... , false) >>> to control this. If WoL is disabled by the user (or deemed not usable, see >>> below), it already does so. >> >> I don't think that API is intended to be used like that and I wonder >> if it even works as expected. >> >> Quoting the doc: >> "If device wakeup mechanisms are enabled or disabled directly by >> drivers, they also should use :c:func:`device_may_wakeup()` to decide what >> to do >> during a system sleep transition. Device drivers, however, are not expected >> to >> call :c:func:`device_set_wakeup_enable()` directly in any case." >> >> Rafael, can you comment on this? > > Well, it means what it says. > > If you call device_set_wakeup_enable() from a driver, user space will > see a change in sysfs and may be confused by that and that's why doing > so is not recommended. > > Not that people listen to recommendations too much, though. :-)
But setting up WoL via ethtool from user space is an exception, because user space actually *does* expect to see a change in sysfs in this particular case. It's basically two different ways to change the same setting and both should result in the same behavior, ideally. Thanks, Rafael
