Re: [PATCH v14 2/7] PM / wakeup: Add device_children_wakeup_capable()

From: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
To: Pavan Kondeti <quic_pkondeti@quicinc.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Sandeep Maheswaram <quic_c_sanm@quicinc.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Felipe Balbi <balbi@kernel.org>,
	Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
	Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
	Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@intel.com>,
	Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
	<devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:ULTRA-WIDEBAND (UWB) SUBSYSTEM:" 
	<linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	quic_ppratap@quicinc.com, quic_kriskura@quicinc.com,
	quic_vpulyala@quicinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 2/7] PM / wakeup: Add device_children_wakeup_capable()
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2022 12:19:22 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Ymw6Og/qhg3D0mx+@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220429125956.GD16319@hu-pkondeti-hyd.qualcomm.com>

Hi Pavan,

On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 06:29:56PM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
> 
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 06:33:03PM +0530, Pavan Kondeti wrote:
> > Hi Matthias,
> > 
> > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 11:44:36AM -0700, Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 01:57:17PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 9:11 PM Sandeep Maheswaram
> > > > <quic_c_sanm@quicinc.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@chromium.org>
> > > > >
> > > > > Add device_children_wakeup_capable() which checks whether the device itself
> > > > > or one if its descendants is wakeup capable.
> > > > 
> > > > device_wakeup_path() exists for a very similar purpose.
> > > > 
> > > > Is it not usable for whatever you need the new function introduced here?
> > > 
> > > I wasn't aware of it's function, there are no doc comments and the
> > > name isn't really self explanatory.
> > > 
> > > In a quick test device_wakeup_path() returned inconsistent values for the
> > > root hub, sometimes true, others false when a wakeup capable USB device was
> > > connected.
> > 
> > We will also test the same to double confirm the behavior of
> > device_wakeup_path(). I am assuming that you checked device_wakeup_path()
> > only during system suspend path.
> > 
> > Here is what I understood by looking at __device_suspend(). Please share
> > your thoughts on this.
> > 
> > power.wakeup_path is set to true for the parent *after* a wakeup capable
> > device is suspended. This means when the root hub(s) is suspended, it is
> > propagated to xhci-plat and when xhci-plat is suspended, it is propagated
> > to dwc3. bottom up propgation during system suspend.
> > 
> > I believe we can directly check something like this in the dwc3 driver
> > instead of having another wrapper like device_children_wakeup_capable().
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c
> > index 1170b80..a783257 100644
> > --- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/core.c
> > @@ -1878,8 +1878,14 @@ static int dwc3_suspend_common(struct dwc3 *dwc, pm_message_t msg)
> >  		break;
> >  	case DWC3_GCTL_PRTCAP_HOST:
> >  		if (!PMSG_IS_AUTO(msg)) {
> > +			/*
> > +			 * Don't kill the host when dwc3 is wakeup capable and
> > +			 * its children needs wakeup.
> > +			 */
> > +			if (device_may_wakeup(dwc->dev) && device_wakeup_path(dwc->dev))
> > +				handle_it();
> > +		} else {
> >  			dwc3_core_exit(dwc);
> > -			break;
> >  		}
> >  
> >  		/* Let controller to suspend HSPHY before PHY driver suspends */
> > 
> 
> device_wakeup_path(dwc->dev) is returning true all the time irrespective of
> the wakeup capability (and enabled status) of the connected USB devices. That
> is because xhci-plat device is configured to wakeup all the time. Since the
> child is wakeup capable, its parent i.e dwc3 has device_wakeup_path() set.
> device_children_wakeup_capable() will also suffer the problem. However,
> 
> device_children_wakeup_capable(&hcd->self.root_hub->dev) is what Sandeep's
> patch is using. That is not correct. we have two root hubs (HS and SS) associated
> with a USB3 controller and calling it on one root hub is incorrect. 
> device_children_wakeup_capable() must be called on xhci-plat so that it covers
> both HS and SS root hubs

Thanks for pointing that out!

> I am thinking of dynamically enabling/disabling xhci-plat wakeup capability so
> that the wakeup path is correctly propagated to dwc3. something like below.
> Does it make sense to you?
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c
> index 649ffd8..be0c55b 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/xhci-plat.c
> @@ -412,6 +412,9 @@ static int __maybe_unused xhci_plat_suspend(struct device *dev)
>  	struct xhci_hcd	*xhci = hcd_to_xhci(hcd);
>  	int ret;
>  
> +	if (!device_wakeup_path(dev))
> +		device_wakeup_disable(dev);
> +
>  	if (pm_runtime_suspended(dev))
>  		pm_runtime_resume(dev);
>  
> @@ -443,6 +446,8 @@ static int __maybe_unused xhci_plat_resume(struct device *dev)
>  	pm_runtime_set_active(dev);
>  	pm_runtime_enable(dev);
>  
> +	device_wakeup_enable(dev);

I think this also needs to be done conditionally, otherwise it would
create a new wake source on every resume when wakeup is already
enabled.

Other than that this seems to do the trick and keeps the USB layer out of
the dwc3 code.