| Message ID | 20180611015650.51385-1-srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote: > From: Even Xu <even.xu@intel.com> > > Current ish driver only register resume/suspend PM callbacks which > don't support hibernation (suspend to disk). Now use the > SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS() MACRO instead of struct dev_pm_ops directly. > The suspend and resume functions will now be used for both suspend > to RAM and hibernation. > > If power management is disable, SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS will do nothing, > the suspend and resume related functions won't be used, so mark them > as __maybe_unused to clarify that this is intended behavior, and > remove #ifdefs for power management. This describes details the patch does on code level, but what are the user observable effects? Hibernation resume doesn't fail any more? Hibernation is possible (and wasn't before)? Did kernel crash while trying to hibernate and this is the fix? Or ... ? Thanks,
On Tue, 2018-06-12 at 16:53 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote: > > > From: Even Xu <even.xu@intel.com> > > > > Current ish driver only register resume/suspend PM callbacks which > > don't support hibernation (suspend to disk). Now use the > > SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS() MACRO instead of struct dev_pm_ops directly. > > The suspend and resume functions will now be used for both suspend > > to RAM and hibernation. > > > > If power management is disable, SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS will do nothing, > > the suspend and resume related functions won't be used, so mark > > them > > as __maybe_unused to clarify that this is intended behavior, and > > remove #ifdefs for power management. > > This describes details the patch does on code level, but what are the > user > observable effects? Hibernation resume doesn't fail any more? > Hibernation > is possible (and wasn't before)? Did kernel crash while trying to > hibernate and this is the fix? Or ... ? Even, Can you add more details and resubmit ASAP? Basically after hiberation, the ISH can't resume properly and user may not see sensor events (for example: screen rotation may not work). User will not see a crash or panic or anything except the following message in log: hid-sensor-hub 001F:8086:22D8.0001: timeout waiting for response from ISHTP device So this is adding support for S4/hiberbation to ISH. Thanks, Srinivas > > Thanks, > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi, Jiri Kosina, If without this patch, the platform with ISH, its hibernation resume will take more than 10s because of ISH resume failure, it will also cause ISH not functional. With this patch, everything will go will. Best Regards, Even Xu -----Original Message----- From: Jiri Kosina [mailto:jikos@kernel.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 10:53 PM To: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> Cc: benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com; linux-input@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Xu, Even <even.xu@intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] hid: intel_ish-hid: ipc: register more pm callbacks to support hibernation On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote: > From: Even Xu <even.xu@intel.com> > > Current ish driver only register resume/suspend PM callbacks which > don't support hibernation (suspend to disk). Now use the > SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS() MACRO instead of struct dev_pm_ops directly. > The suspend and resume functions will now be used for both suspend to > RAM and hibernation. > > If power management is disable, SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS will do nothing, the > suspend and resume related functions won't be used, so mark them as > __maybe_unused to clarify that this is intended behavior, and remove > #ifdefs for power management. This describes details the patch does on code level, but what are the user observable effects? Hibernation resume doesn't fail any more? Hibernation is possible (and wasn't before)? Did kernel crash while trying to hibernate and this is the fix? Or ... ? Thanks, -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Ok, sure, I will update patch comments and resubmit. Thanks Srinivas! Best Regards, Even Xu -----Original Message----- From: Srinivas Pandruvada [mailto:srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 11:31 PM To: Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>; Xu, Even <even.xu@intel.com> Cc: benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com; linux-input@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Xu, Even <even.xu@intel.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] hid: intel_ish-hid: ipc: register more pm callbacks to support hibernation On Tue, 2018-06-12 at 16:53 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote: > > > From: Even Xu <even.xu@intel.com> > > > > Current ish driver only register resume/suspend PM callbacks which > > don't support hibernation (suspend to disk). Now use the > > SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS() MACRO instead of struct dev_pm_ops directly. > > The suspend and resume functions will now be used for both suspend > > to RAM and hibernation. > > > > If power management is disable, SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS will do nothing, > > the suspend and resume related functions won't be used, so mark them > > as __maybe_unused to clarify that this is intended behavior, and > > remove #ifdefs for power management. > > This describes details the patch does on code level, but what are the > user observable effects? Hibernation resume doesn't fail any more? > Hibernation > is possible (and wasn't before)? Did kernel crash while trying to > hibernate and this is the fix? Or ... ? Even, Can you add more details and resubmit ASAP? Basically after hiberation, the ISH can't resume properly and user may not see sensor events (for example: screen rotation may not work). User will not see a crash or panic or anything except the following message in log: hid-sensor-hub 001F:8086:22D8.0001: timeout waiting for response from ISHTP device So this is adding support for S4/hiberbation to ISH. Thanks, Srinivas > > Thanks, >
On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 00:05 +0000, Xu, Even wrote: > Ok, sure, I will update patch comments and resubmit. Can you also add in the sign-off area Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Thanks, Srinivas > Thanks Srinivas! > > Best Regards, > Even Xu > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Srinivas Pandruvada [mailto:srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com > ] > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 11:31 PM > To: Jiri Kosina <jikos@kernel.org>; Xu, Even <even.xu@intel.com> > Cc: benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com; linux-input@vger.kernel.org; linux > -kernel@vger.kernel.org; Xu, Even <even.xu@intel.com> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] hid: intel_ish-hid: ipc: register more pm > callbacks to support hibernation > > On Tue, 2018-06-12 at 16:53 +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote: > > > > > From: Even Xu <even.xu@intel.com> > > > > > > Current ish driver only register resume/suspend PM callbacks > > > which > > > don't support hibernation (suspend to disk). Now use the > > > SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS() MACRO instead of struct dev_pm_ops directly. > > > The suspend and resume functions will now be used for both > > > suspend > > > to RAM and hibernation. > > > > > > If power management is disable, SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS will do > > > nothing, > > > the suspend and resume related functions won't be used, so mark > > > them > > > as __maybe_unused to clarify that this is intended behavior, and > > > remove #ifdefs for power management. > > > > This describes details the patch does on code level, but what are > > the > > user observable effects? Hibernation resume doesn't fail any more? > > Hibernation > > is possible (and wasn't before)? Did kernel crash while trying to > > hibernate and this is the fix? Or ... ? > > Even, > Can you add more details and resubmit ASAP? > > Basically after hiberation, the ISH can't resume properly and user > may not see sensor events (for example: screen rotation may not > work). > User will not see a crash or panic or anything except the following > message in log: > hid-sensor-hub 001F:8086:22D8.0001: timeout waiting for response from > ISHTP device > > So this is adding support for S4/hiberbation to ISH. > > > > Thanks, > Srinivas > > > > > Thanks, > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/hid/intel-ish-hid/ipc/pci-ish.c b/drivers/hid/intel-ish-hid/ipc/pci-ish.c index 582e449be9fe..a2c53ea3b5ed 100644 --- a/drivers/hid/intel-ish-hid/ipc/pci-ish.c +++ b/drivers/hid/intel-ish-hid/ipc/pci-ish.c @@ -205,8 +205,7 @@ static void ish_remove(struct pci_dev *pdev) kfree(ishtp_dev); } -#ifdef CONFIG_PM -static struct device *ish_resume_device; +static struct device __maybe_unused *ish_resume_device; /* 50ms to get resume response */ #define WAIT_FOR_RESUME_ACK_MS 50 @@ -220,7 +219,7 @@ static struct device *ish_resume_device; * in that case a simple resume message is enough, others we need * a reset sequence. */ -static void ish_resume_handler(struct work_struct *work) +static void __maybe_unused ish_resume_handler(struct work_struct *work) { struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(ish_resume_device); struct ishtp_device *dev = pci_get_drvdata(pdev); @@ -262,7 +261,7 @@ static void ish_resume_handler(struct work_struct *work) * * Return: 0 to the pm core */ -static int ish_suspend(struct device *device) +static int __maybe_unused ish_suspend(struct device *device) { struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(device); struct ishtp_device *dev = pci_get_drvdata(pdev); @@ -288,7 +287,7 @@ static int ish_suspend(struct device *device) return 0; } -static DECLARE_WORK(resume_work, ish_resume_handler); +static __maybe_unused DECLARE_WORK(resume_work, ish_resume_handler); /** * ish_resume() - ISH resume callback * @device: device pointer @@ -297,7 +296,7 @@ static DECLARE_WORK(resume_work, ish_resume_handler); * * Return: 0 to the pm core */ -static int ish_resume(struct device *device) +static int __maybe_unused ish_resume(struct device *device) { struct pci_dev *pdev = to_pci_dev(device); struct ishtp_device *dev = pci_get_drvdata(pdev); @@ -311,21 +310,14 @@ static int ish_resume(struct device *device) return 0; } -static const struct dev_pm_ops ish_pm_ops = { - .suspend = ish_suspend, - .resume = ish_resume, -}; -#define ISHTP_ISH_PM_OPS (&ish_pm_ops) -#else -#define ISHTP_ISH_PM_OPS NULL -#endif /* CONFIG_PM */ +static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(ish_pm_ops, ish_suspend, ish_resume); static struct pci_driver ish_driver = { .name = KBUILD_MODNAME, .id_table = ish_pci_tbl, .probe = ish_probe, .remove = ish_remove, - .driver.pm = ISHTP_ISH_PM_OPS, + .driver.pm = &ish_pm_ops, }; module_pci_driver(ish_driver);