Re: [PATCH] dma: dw: Add suspend and resume handling for PCI mode DW_DMAC.

[Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>]

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 12:51:29PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 21:19 +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 01:51:47PM +0530, Chew, Chiau Ee wrote:
> 
> > > As mentioned by Andy, we are using *_noirq  verion of suspend/resume PM
> > > callback whereby the callbacks would be executed after IRQ handlers have been
> > > disabled. If using SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS, it would be the normal
> > > suspend/resume PM callback. Looking at the Desginware DMAC platform code
> > > (drivers/dma/dw/platform.c), it is using the *_noirq suspend/resume PM
> > > callback. Is it advisable to use the normal suspend/resume PM callback instead
> > > of *_noirq suspend/PM callback? 
> > 
> > i dont see a reason why we need the noirq versions
> 
> Okay. I imagine the following use case.
> 
> For example we have compiled in DMA driver (dw_dmac) along with, for
> example, SPI driver.
> 
> System was scheduled to go sleep.
> 
> An order of calling IIUC might be DMA first, then SPI (since they are
> not in parent / child relations).
> 
> What was happened when SPI would like to do a DMA transfer and DMA is
> going to sleep? I'm trying to understand if this is a case.
In that case how does no irq version help us?

For these cases, I have been using suspend_late. Since the dmaengine driver is
providing service to other clients (SPI), it needs to esnure that it suspends
after SPI using suspend_late and resume using resume_early. That way dma is
availble whenever the client is active

--
~Vinod

> 
> > > > How about SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS instead?
> > > 
> > > So, we are using *_noirq versions of the functions here. What happened when we switch to normal ones? Any side effects?
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
> Intel Finland Oy
> 

--