| Message ID | 1593163942-5087-3-git-send-email-yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@renesas.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | treewide: add regulator condition on _mmc_suspend() | expand |
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 06:32:20PM +0900, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote: > +static int reg_is_enabled(struct regulator_dev *rdev) > +{ > + struct fixed_voltage_data *priv = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev); > + > + return !priv->disabled_in_suspend; > +} This is broken, the state of the regualtor during system runtime need have no connection with the state of the regulator during system suspend. > +static int reg_prepare_disable(struct regulator_dev *rdev) > +{ > + struct fixed_voltage_data *priv = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev); > + > + priv->disabled_in_suspend = true; > + > + return 0; > +} According to the changelog this is all about reflecting changes in the system state done by firmware but there's no interaction with firmware here which means this will be at best fragile. If we need to reflect changes in firmware configuration I'd expect there to be some interaction with firmware about how it is configured, or at least that the configuration would come from the same source.
Hi Mark, > From: Mark Brown, Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 11:39 PM > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 06:32:20PM +0900, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote: > > > +static int reg_is_enabled(struct regulator_dev *rdev) > > +{ > > + struct fixed_voltage_data *priv = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev); > > + > > + return !priv->disabled_in_suspend; > > +} > > This is broken, the state of the regualtor during system runtime need > have no connection with the state of the regulator during system > suspend. > > > +static int reg_prepare_disable(struct regulator_dev *rdev) > > +{ > > + struct fixed_voltage_data *priv = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev); > > + > > + priv->disabled_in_suspend = true; > > + > > + return 0; > > +} > > According to the changelog this is all about reflecting changes in the > system state done by firmware but there's no interaction with firmware > here which means this will be at best fragile. If we need to reflect > changes in firmware configuration I'd expect there to be some > interaction with firmware about how it is configured, or at least that > the configuration would come from the same source. I should have described background of previous patch series though, according to previous discussion [1] the firmware side (like PSCI) is also fragile unfortunately... So, I thought using regulator-off-in-suspend in a regulator was better. On other hand, Ulf is talking about either adding a property (perhaps like regulator-off-in-suspend) into a regulator or just adding a new property into MMC [2]. What do you think about Ulf' comment? I'm thinking adding a new property "full-pwr-cycle-in-suspend" is the best solution. This is because using a regulator property and reflecting a state of regulator without firmware is fragile, as you said. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-renesas-soc/CAMuHMdXjU7N4oG89YsozGijMpjgKGN6ezw2qm6FeGX=JyRhsvg@mail.gmail.com/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-renesas-soc/CAPDyKFpiBU1D+a7zb+Ggm0_HZ+YR4=LXJZ5MPytXtT=uBEdjPA@mail.gmail.com/ Best regards, Yoshihiro Shimoda
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 02:42:26AM +0000, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote: > > From: Mark Brown, Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 11:39 PM Copying in Sudeep for the feedback on firmware interfaces. > > According to the changelog this is all about reflecting changes in the > > system state done by firmware but there's no interaction with firmware > > here which means this will be at best fragile. If we need to reflect > > changes in firmware configuration I'd expect there to be some > > interaction with firmware about how it is configured, or at least that > > the configuration would come from the same source. > I should have described background of previous patch series though, > according to previous discussion [1] the firmware side (like PSCI) is > also fragile unfortunately... So, I thought using regulator-off-in-suspend > in a regulator was better. > On other hand, Ulf is talking about either adding a property (perhaps like > regulator-off-in-suspend) into a regulator or just adding a new property > into MMC [2]. What do you think about Ulf' comment? I'm thinking > adding a new property "full-pwr-cycle-in-suspend" is the best solution. > This is because using a regulator property and reflecting a state of regulator without > firmware is fragile, as you said. TBH I worry about a property drifting out of sync with the firmware on systems where the firmware can be updated. Personally my default assumption would always be that we're going to loose power for anything except the RAM and whatever is needed for wake sources during suspend so I find the discussion a bit surprising but in any case that seems like a better option than trying to shoehorn things in the way the series here did. Like I said in my earlier replies if this is done through the regulator API I'd expect it to be via the suspend interface. > [1] > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-renesas-soc/CAMuHMdXjU7N4oG89YsozGijMpjgKGN6ezw2qm6FeGX=JyRhsvg@mail.gmail.com/ > > [2] > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-renesas-soc/CAPDyKFpiBU1D+a7zb+Ggm0_HZ+YR4=LXJZ5MPytXtT=uBEdjPA@mail.gmail.com/ > > Best regards, > Yoshihiro Shimoda >
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 01:57:56PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 02:42:26AM +0000, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote: > > > From: Mark Brown, Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 11:39 PM > > Copying in Sudeep for the feedback on firmware interfaces. > Thanks Mark. > > > According to the changelog this is all about reflecting changes in the > > > system state done by firmware but there's no interaction with firmware > > > here which means this will be at best fragile. If we need to reflect > > > changes in firmware configuration I'd expect there to be some > > > interaction with firmware about how it is configured, or at least that > > > the configuration would come from the same source. > I agree. > > I should have described background of previous patch series though, > > according to previous discussion [1] the firmware side (like PSCI) is > > also fragile unfortunately... So, I thought using regulator-off-in-suspend > > in a regulator was better. > Please fix the firmware. You might have bigger problem than this if the PSCI firmware is fragile as you state. Better to disable power management on the platform if the firmware can't be fixed. > > On other hand, Ulf is talking about either adding a property (perhaps like > > regulator-off-in-suspend) into a regulator or just adding a new property > > into MMC [2]. What do you think about Ulf' comment? I'm thinking > > adding a new property "full-pwr-cycle-in-suspend" is the best solution. > > This is because using a regulator property and reflecting a state of regulator without > > firmware is fragile, as you said. I haven't followed all the threads, but if it related to the policy you want in the Linux, then may be use DT property or something. I don't know. But if this is to indicate something based on firmware runtime/configuration, then NACK for any approaches unconditionally. > > TBH I worry about a property drifting out of sync with the firmware on > systems where the firmware can be updated. Personally my default > assumption would always be that we're going to loose power for anything > except the RAM and whatever is needed for wake sources during suspend so > I find the discussion a bit surprising but in any case that seems like a > better option than trying to shoehorn things in the way the series here > did. Like I said in my earlier replies if this is done through the > regulator API I'd expect it to be via the suspend interface. > +1. If this platform needs Linux to keep some state on for users in the firmware or anything outside Linux, it must resume back in the same state as we entered the suspend state from the kernel. -- Regards, Sudeep
Hi Sudeep, On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 3:40 PM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 01:57:56PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 02:42:26AM +0000, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote: > > > > From: Mark Brown, Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 11:39 PM > > > > According to the changelog this is all about reflecting changes in the > > > > system state done by firmware but there's no interaction with firmware > > > > here which means this will be at best fragile. If we need to reflect > > > > changes in firmware configuration I'd expect there to be some > > > > interaction with firmware about how it is configured, or at least that > > > > the configuration would come from the same source. > > I agree. > > > > I should have described background of previous patch series though, > > > according to previous discussion [1] the firmware side (like PSCI) is > > > also fragile unfortunately... So, I thought using regulator-off-in-suspend > > > in a regulator was better. > > Please fix the firmware. You might have bigger problem than this if the > PSCI firmware is fragile as you state. Better to disable power management > on the platform if the firmware can't be fixed. Saying the implementation is "fragile" might be bad wording. The issue is more with the specification being vague (see more below). > > > On other hand, Ulf is talking about either adding a property (perhaps like > > > regulator-off-in-suspend) into a regulator or just adding a new property > > > into MMC [2]. What do you think about Ulf' comment? I'm thinking > > > adding a new property "full-pwr-cycle-in-suspend" is the best solution. > > > This is because using a regulator property and reflecting a state of regulator without > > > firmware is fragile, as you said. > > I haven't followed all the threads, but if it related to the policy you > want in the Linux, then may be use DT property or something. I don't know. > But if this is to indicate something based on firmware runtime/configuration, > then NACK for any approaches unconditionally. Like "arm,psci-system-suspend-is-power-down"[1]? > > TBH I worry about a property drifting out of sync with the firmware on > > systems where the firmware can be updated. Personally my default > > assumption would always be that we're going to loose power for anything OK, so that's the "safe" way to handle this: assume power is lost. > > except the RAM and whatever is needed for wake sources during suspend so Oh, even wake-up sources may become unpowered[2] ;-) And thus stop working ;-( > > I find the discussion a bit surprising but in any case that seems like a > > better option than trying to shoehorn things in the way the series here > > did. Like I said in my earlier replies if this is done through the > > regulator API I'd expect it to be via the suspend interface. > > +1. If this platform needs Linux to keep some state on for users in the > firmware or anything outside Linux, it must resume back in the same state > as we entered the suspend state from the kernel. I think you're misunderstanding the issue: this is not related at all to Linux keeping state for non-Linux users. This is all about how to know what exactly PSCI is powering down during SYSTEM_SUSPEND. In this specific case, it is about knowing if the eMMC is powered down or not, as Linux should follow a specific procedure to prepare the eMMC for that, and Linux should not if that isn't the case. I had a quick look at the latest revision of the PSCI specification, and it doesn't look like anything has changed in that area since my old patch series from 2017. So it still boils down to: we don't know what a specific PSCI implementation will do, as basically anything is compliant, so the only safe thing is to assume the worst. Or am I missing something? Thanks! [1] "[PATCH/RFC 4/6] drivers: firmware: psci: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power" https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/1487622809-25127-5-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be/ [2] [PATCH/RFC 0/6] PSCI: Fix non-PMIC wake-up if SYSTEM_SUSPEND cuts power https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/1487622809-25127-1-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be/ [3] https://developer.arm.com/architectures/system-architectures/software-standards/psci Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 04:15:39PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Sudeep, > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 3:40 PM Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 01:57:56PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 02:42:26AM +0000, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote: > > > > > From: Mark Brown, Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 11:39 PM > > > > > According to the changelog this is all about reflecting changes in the > > > > > system state done by firmware but there's no interaction with firmware > > > > > here which means this will be at best fragile. If we need to reflect > > > > > changes in firmware configuration I'd expect there to be some > > > > > interaction with firmware about how it is configured, or at least that > > > > > the configuration would come from the same source. > > > > I agree. > > > > > > I should have described background of previous patch series though, > > > > according to previous discussion [1] the firmware side (like PSCI) is > > > > also fragile unfortunately... So, I thought using regulator-off-in-suspend > > > > in a regulator was better. > > > > Please fix the firmware. You might have bigger problem than this if the > > PSCI firmware is fragile as you state. Better to disable power management > > on the platform if the firmware can't be fixed. > > Saying the implementation is "fragile" might be bad wording. > The issue is more with the specification being vague (see more below). > Please elaborate on the vague part of the specification, happy to help you get that fixed if it really needs to be. > > > > On other hand, Ulf is talking about either adding a property (perhaps like > > > > regulator-off-in-suspend) into a regulator or just adding a new property > > > > into MMC [2]. What do you think about Ulf' comment? I'm thinking > > > > adding a new property "full-pwr-cycle-in-suspend" is the best solution. > > > > This is because using a regulator property and reflecting a state of regulator without > > > > firmware is fragile, as you said. > > > > I haven't followed all the threads, but if it related to the policy you > > want in the Linux, then may be use DT property or something. I don't know. > > But if this is to indicate something based on firmware runtime/configuration, > > then NACK for any approaches unconditionally. > > Like "arm,psci-system-suspend-is-power-down"[1]? > Really sounds hack to me. > > > TBH I worry about a property drifting out of sync with the firmware on > > > systems where the firmware can be updated. Personally my default > > > assumption would always be that we're going to loose power for anything > > OK, so that's the "safe" way to handle this: assume power is lost. > > > > except the RAM and whatever is needed for wake sources during suspend so > > Oh, even wake-up sources may become unpowered[2] ;-) That is some serious issue. If there is no power, how can you expect it to be wake up source ? Sounds something wrong fundamentally IMO. > And thus stop working ;-( > > > > I find the discussion a bit surprising but in any case that seems like a > > > better option than trying to shoehorn things in the way the series here > > > did. Like I said in my earlier replies if this is done through the > > > regulator API I'd expect it to be via the suspend interface. > > > > +1. If this platform needs Linux to keep some state on for users in the > > firmware or anything outside Linux, it must resume back in the same state > > as we entered the suspend state from the kernel. > > I think you're misunderstanding the issue: this is not related at all > to Linux keeping state for non-Linux users. > OK, thanks for confirming. > This is all about how to know what exactly PSCI is powering down during > SYSTEM_SUSPEND. In this specific case, it is about knowing if the eMMC > is powered down or not, as Linux should follow a specific procedure to > prepare the eMMC for that, and Linux should not if that isn't the case. > OK, unless you are optimising, you shouldn't care then what PSCI does. If you don't need eMMC, just suspend/power it off before you enter system/ psci suspend. > I had a quick look at the latest revision of the PSCI specification, and > it doesn't look like anything has changed in that area since my old patch > series from 2017. So it still boils down to: we don't know what a > specific PSCI implementation will do, as basically anything is > compliant, so the only safe thing is to assume the worst. > The specification states clearly: "... all devices in the system must be in a state that is compatible with entry into the system state. These preconditions are beyond the scope of this specification and are therefore not described here." "Prior to the call, the OS must disable all sources of wakeup other than those it needs to support for its implementation of suspend to RAM." And of course, the firmware must rely on OSPM to do proper device PM if it is not shared resource. Trying to be aggressive and turning off all the wakeup sources which out knowledge of it is broken firmware. I see nothing has been fixed in the firmware too and we are still discussing the same after 3 years
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 04:07:28PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 04:15:39PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > This is all about how to know what exactly PSCI is powering down during > > SYSTEM_SUSPEND. In this specific case, it is about knowing if the eMMC > > is powered down or not, as Linux should follow a specific procedure to > > prepare the eMMC for that, and Linux should not if that isn't the case. > OK, unless you are optimising, you shouldn't care then what PSCI does. > If you don't need eMMC, just suspend/power it off before you enter system/ > psci suspend. That only works if the power off procedure doesn't require that power be removed as part of the procedure. There's a reasonable argument that specs that have such requirements are unhelpful but that doesn't mean that nobody will make hardware with such requrements which creates problems for generic code that needs to control that hardware if it can't discover the power state over suspend. > > I had a quick look at the latest revision of the PSCI specification, and > > it doesn't look like anything has changed in that area since my old patch > > series from 2017. So it still boils down to: we don't know what a > > specific PSCI implementation will do, as basically anything is > > compliant, so the only safe thing is to assume the worst. > The specification states clearly: > "... all devices in the system must be in a state that is compatible > with entry into the system state. These preconditions are beyond the scope > of this specification and are therefore not described here." > "Prior to the call, the OS must disable all sources of wakeup other than > those it needs to support for its implementation of suspend to RAM." This gets a bit circular for a generic OS since the OS needs some way to figure out what it's supposed to do on a given platform - for example the OS may be happy to use wakeup sources that the firmware is just going to cut power on. > I see nothing has been fixed in the firmware too and we are still > discussing the same after 3 years
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 05:14:50PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 04:07:28PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 04:15:39PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > This is all about how to know what exactly PSCI is powering down during > > > SYSTEM_SUSPEND. In this specific case, it is about knowing if the eMMC > > > is powered down or not, as Linux should follow a specific procedure to > > > prepare the eMMC for that, and Linux should not if that isn't the case. > > > OK, unless you are optimising, you shouldn't care then what PSCI does. > > If you don't need eMMC, just suspend/power it off before you enter system/ > > psci suspend. > > That only works if the power off procedure doesn't require that power be > removed as part of the procedure. There's a reasonable argument that > specs that have such requirements are unhelpful but that doesn't mean > that nobody will make hardware with such requrements which creates > problems for generic code that needs to control that hardware if it > can't discover the power state over suspend. > Fair enough. > > > I had a quick look at the latest revision of the PSCI specification, and > > > it doesn't look like anything has changed in that area since my old patch > > > series from 2017. So it still boils down to: we don't know what a > > > specific PSCI implementation will do, as basically anything is > > > compliant, so the only safe thing is to assume the worst. > > > The specification states clearly: > > "... all devices in the system must be in a state that is compatible > > with entry into the system state. These preconditions are beyond the scope > > of this specification and are therefore not described here." > > "Prior to the call, the OS must disable all sources of wakeup other than > > those it needs to support for its implementation of suspend to RAM." > > This gets a bit circular for a generic OS since the OS needs some way to > figure out what it's supposed to do on a given platform - for example > the OS may be happy to use wakeup sources that the firmware is just > going to cut power on. > While I understand the sentiments here, PSCI is targeted to address CPU power state management mainly and system states like suspend/reset and poweroff which involves last CPU. This is one of the reason it is out of the scope of the specification. Here is my understanding. DT specifies all the wakeup sources. Linux can configure those and user may choose to enable a subset of them is wakeup. As stated in the spec and also based on what we already do in the kernel, we disable all other wakeup sources. The PSCI firmware can then either read those from the interrupt controller or based on static platform understanding, must not disable those wakeup sources. > > I see nothing has been fixed in the firmware too and we are still > > discussing the same after 3 years
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 05:42:07PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 05:14:50PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 04:07:28PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > > > The specification states clearly: > > > "... all devices in the system must be in a state that is compatible > > > with entry into the system state. These preconditions are beyond the scope > > > of this specification and are therefore not described here." > > > "Prior to the call, the OS must disable all sources of wakeup other than > > > those it needs to support for its implementation of suspend to RAM." > > This gets a bit circular for a generic OS since the OS needs some way to > > figure out what it's supposed to do on a given platform - for example > > the OS may be happy to use wakeup sources that the firmware is just > > going to cut power on. > While I understand the sentiments here, PSCI is targeted to address CPU > power state management mainly and system states like suspend/reset and > poweroff which involves last CPU. This is one of the reason it is out of > the scope of the specification. Sure, but as soon as we start talking about the last CPU stuff we're inevitably talking about the system as a whole. > Here is my understanding. DT specifies all the wakeup sources. Linux > can configure those and user may choose to enable a subset of them is > wakeup. As stated in the spec and also based on what we already do in > the kernel, we disable all other wakeup sources. > The PSCI firmware can then either read those from the interrupt controller > or based on static platform understanding, must not disable those wakeup > sources. That bit about static platform understanding isn't super helpful for the OS, so long as the firmware might do that the OS is pretty much out of luck. > > > I see nothing has been fixed in the firmware too and we are still > > > discussing the same after 3 years
On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 06:26:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 05:42:07PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 05:14:50PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 04:07:28PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > > > > > The specification states clearly: > > > > "... all devices in the system must be in a state that is compatible > > > > with entry into the system state. These preconditions are beyond the scope > > > > of this specification and are therefore not described here." > > > > "Prior to the call, the OS must disable all sources of wakeup other than > > > > those it needs to support for its implementation of suspend to RAM." > > > > This gets a bit circular for a generic OS since the OS needs some way to > > > figure out what it's supposed to do on a given platform - for example > > > the OS may be happy to use wakeup sources that the firmware is just > > > going to cut power on. > > > While I understand the sentiments here, PSCI is targeted to address CPU > > power state management mainly and system states like suspend/reset and > > poweroff which involves last CPU. This is one of the reason it is out of > > the scope of the specification. > > Sure, but as soon as we start talking about the last CPU stuff we're > inevitably talking about the system as a whole. > > > Here is my understanding. DT specifies all the wakeup sources. Linux > > can configure those and user may choose to enable a subset of them is > > wakeup. As stated in the spec and also based on what we already do in > > the kernel, we disable all other wakeup sources. > > > The PSCI firmware can then either read those from the interrupt controller > > or based on static platform understanding, must not disable those wakeup > > sources. > > That bit about static platform understanding isn't super helpful for the > OS, so long as the firmware might do that the OS is pretty much out of > luck. > I don't disagree. That's one of the reason I wanted to gather requirement few years back when PSCI system suspend was introduced. I couldn't convince PSCI spec authors myself. > > > > I see nothing has been fixed in the firmware too and we are still > > > > discussing the same after 3 years
Hi Mark, > From: Mark Brown, Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 9:58 PM > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 02:42:26AM +0000, Yoshihiro Shimoda wrote: > > > From: Mark Brown, Sent: Friday, June 26, 2020 11:39 PM > > Copying in Sudeep for the feedback on firmware interfaces. Thank you very much for the discussion about the firmware. > > > According to the changelog this is all about reflecting changes in the > > > system state done by firmware but there's no interaction with firmware > > > here which means this will be at best fragile. If we need to reflect > > > changes in firmware configuration I'd expect there to be some > > > interaction with firmware about how it is configured, or at least that > > > the configuration would come from the same source. > > > I should have described background of previous patch series though, > > according to previous discussion [1] the firmware side (like PSCI) is > > also fragile unfortunately... So, I thought using regulator-off-in-suspend > > in a regulator was better. > > > On other hand, Ulf is talking about either adding a property (perhaps like > > regulator-off-in-suspend) into a regulator or just adding a new property > > into MMC [2]. What do you think about Ulf' comment? I'm thinking > > adding a new property "full-pwr-cycle-in-suspend" is the best solution. > > This is because using a regulator property and reflecting a state of regulator without > > firmware is fragile, as you said. > > TBH I worry about a property drifting out of sync with the firmware on > systems where the firmware can be updated. I understood it. > Personally my default > assumption would always be that we're going to loose power for anything > except the RAM and whatever is needed for wake sources during suspend so > I find the discussion a bit surprising but in any case that seems like a > better option than trying to shoehorn things in the way the series here > did. Thank you for your comment! So, I'll make such a patch series later. > Like I said in my earlier replies if this is done through the > regulator API I'd expect it to be via the suspend interface. I don't intend to use any regulator API for this issue for now. Best regards, Yoshihiro Shimoda > > [1] > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-renesas-soc/CAMuHMdXjU7N4oG89YsozGijMpjgKGN6ezw2qm6FeGX=JyRhsvg@mail.gmail.com/ > > > > [2] > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-renesas-soc/CAPDyKFpiBU1D+a7zb+Ggm0_HZ+YR4=LXJZ5MPytXtT=uBEdjPA@mail.gmail.com/ > > > > Best regards, > > Yoshihiro Shimoda > >
diff --git a/drivers/regulator/fixed.c b/drivers/regulator/fixed.c index d54830e..0bd4a1a 100644 --- a/drivers/regulator/fixed.c +++ b/drivers/regulator/fixed.c @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ struct fixed_voltage_data { struct clk *enable_clock; unsigned int clk_enable_counter; + bool disabled_in_suspend; }; struct fixed_dev_type { @@ -49,6 +50,31 @@ static const struct fixed_dev_type fixed_clkenable_data = { .has_enable_clock = true, }; +static int reg_is_enabled(struct regulator_dev *rdev) +{ + struct fixed_voltage_data *priv = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev); + + return !priv->disabled_in_suspend; +} + +static int reg_prepare_disable(struct regulator_dev *rdev) +{ + struct fixed_voltage_data *priv = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev); + + priv->disabled_in_suspend = true; + + return 0; +} + +static int reg_resume_early_disable(struct regulator_dev *rdev) +{ + struct fixed_voltage_data *priv = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev); + + priv->disabled_in_suspend = false; + + return 0; +} + static int reg_clock_enable(struct regulator_dev *rdev) { struct fixed_voltage_data *priv = rdev_get_drvdata(rdev); @@ -132,6 +158,9 @@ of_get_fixed_voltage_config(struct device *dev, } static struct regulator_ops fixed_voltage_ops = { + .is_enabled = reg_is_enabled, + .set_prepare_disable = reg_prepare_disable, + .clear_resume_early_disable = reg_resume_early_disable, }; static struct regulator_ops fixed_voltage_clkenabled_ops = {
The regulator-fixed driver is possible to be off by firmware like PSCI while the system is suspended. If a consumer could get such a condition from regulator_is_enabled(), it's useful by consumers. So, add some regulator_ops members for it. And then, if regulator-fixed nodes have suitable sub-nodes and properties [1], regulator_is_enabled() will return false while suspend() of a consumer. [1] - The node has regulator-state-(standby|mem|disk) sub-nodes. - The node doesn't have regulator-always-on. - The sub-node has regulator-off-in-suspend property. Signed-off-by: Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@renesas.com> --- drivers/regulator/fixed.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+)