diff options
Diffstat (limited to '')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/power/suspend-and-interrupts.txt | 135 |
1 files changed, 135 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/power/suspend-and-interrupts.txt b/Documentation/power/suspend-and-interrupts.txt new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8afb29a86 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/power/suspend-and-interrupts.txt @@ -0,0 +1,135 @@ +System Suspend and Device Interrupts + +Copyright (C) 2014 Intel Corp. +Author: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> + + +Suspending and Resuming Device IRQs +----------------------------------- + +Device interrupt request lines (IRQs) are generally disabled during system +suspend after the "late" phase of suspending devices (that is, after all of the +->prepare, ->suspend and ->suspend_late callbacks have been executed for all +devices). That is done by suspend_device_irqs(). + +The rationale for doing so is that after the "late" phase of device suspend +there is no legitimate reason why any interrupts from suspended devices should +trigger and if any devices have not been suspended properly yet, it is better to +block interrupts from them anyway. Also, in the past we had problems with +interrupt handlers for shared IRQs that device drivers implementing them were +not prepared for interrupts triggering after their devices had been suspended. +In some cases they would attempt to access, for example, memory address spaces +of suspended devices and cause unpredictable behavior to ensue as a result. +Unfortunately, such problems are very difficult to debug and the introduction +of suspend_device_irqs(), along with the "noirq" phase of device suspend and +resume, was the only practical way to mitigate them. + +Device IRQs are re-enabled during system resume, right before the "early" phase +of resuming devices (that is, before starting to execute ->resume_early +callbacks for devices). The function doing that is resume_device_irqs(). + + +The IRQF_NO_SUSPEND Flag +------------------------ + +There are interrupts that can legitimately trigger during the entire system +suspend-resume cycle, including the "noirq" phases of suspending and resuming +devices as well as during the time when nonboot CPUs are taken offline and +brought back online. That applies to timer interrupts in the first place, +but also to IPIs and to some other special-purpose interrupts. + +The IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag is used to indicate that to the IRQ subsystem when +requesting a special-purpose interrupt. It causes suspend_device_irqs() to +leave the corresponding IRQ enabled so as to allow the interrupt to work as +expected during the suspend-resume cycle, but does not guarantee that the +interrupt will wake the system from a suspended state -- for such cases it is +necessary to use enable_irq_wake(). + +Note that the IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag affects the entire IRQ and not just one +user of it. Thus, if the IRQ is shared, all of the interrupt handlers installed +for it will be executed as usual after suspend_device_irqs(), even if the +IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag was not passed to request_irq() (or equivalent) by some of +the IRQ's users. For this reason, using IRQF_NO_SUSPEND and IRQF_SHARED at the +same time should be avoided. + + +System Wakeup Interrupts, enable_irq_wake() and disable_irq_wake() +------------------------------------------------------------------ + +System wakeup interrupts generally need to be configured to wake up the system +from sleep states, especially if they are used for different purposes (e.g. as +I/O interrupts) in the working state. + +That may involve turning on a special signal handling logic within the platform +(such as an SoC) so that signals from a given line are routed in a different way +during system sleep so as to trigger a system wakeup when needed. For example, +the platform may include a dedicated interrupt controller used specifically for +handling system wakeup events. Then, if a given interrupt line is supposed to +wake up the system from sleep sates, the corresponding input of that interrupt +controller needs to be enabled to receive signals from the line in question. +After wakeup, it generally is better to disable that input to prevent the +dedicated controller from triggering interrupts unnecessarily. + +The IRQ subsystem provides two helper functions to be used by device drivers for +those purposes. Namely, enable_irq_wake() turns on the platform's logic for +handling the given IRQ as a system wakeup interrupt line and disable_irq_wake() +turns that logic off. + +Calling enable_irq_wake() causes suspend_device_irqs() to treat the given IRQ +in a special way. Namely, the IRQ remains enabled, by on the first interrupt +it will be disabled, marked as pending and "suspended" so that it will be +re-enabled by resume_device_irqs() during the subsequent system resume. Also +the PM core is notified about the event which causes the system suspend in +progress to be aborted (that doesn't have to happen immediately, but at one +of the points where the suspend thread looks for pending wakeup events). + +This way every interrupt from a wakeup interrupt source will either cause the +system suspend currently in progress to be aborted or wake up the system if +already suspended. However, after suspend_device_irqs() interrupt handlers are +not executed for system wakeup IRQs. They are only executed for IRQF_NO_SUSPEND +IRQs at that time, but those IRQs should not be configured for system wakeup +using enable_irq_wake(). + + +Interrupts and Suspend-to-Idle +------------------------------ + +Suspend-to-idle (also known as the "freeze" sleep state) is a relatively new +system sleep state that works by idling all of the processors and waiting for +interrupts right after the "noirq" phase of suspending devices. + +Of course, this means that all of the interrupts with the IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag +set will bring CPUs out of idle while in that state, but they will not cause the +IRQ subsystem to trigger a system wakeup. + +System wakeup interrupts, in turn, will trigger wakeup from suspend-to-idle in +analogy with what they do in the full system suspend case. The only difference +is that the wakeup from suspend-to-idle is signaled using the usual working +state interrupt delivery mechanisms and doesn't require the platform to use +any special interrupt handling logic for it to work. + + +IRQF_NO_SUSPEND and enable_irq_wake() +------------------------------------- + +There are very few valid reasons to use both enable_irq_wake() and the +IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag on the same IRQ, and it is never valid to use both for the +same device. + +First of all, if the IRQ is not shared, the rules for handling IRQF_NO_SUSPEND +interrupts (interrupt handlers are invoked after suspend_device_irqs()) are +directly at odds with the rules for handling system wakeup interrupts (interrupt +handlers are not invoked after suspend_device_irqs()). + +Second, both enable_irq_wake() and IRQF_NO_SUSPEND apply to entire IRQs and not +to individual interrupt handlers, so sharing an IRQ between a system wakeup +interrupt source and an IRQF_NO_SUSPEND interrupt source does not generally +make sense. + +In rare cases an IRQ can be shared between a wakeup device driver and an +IRQF_NO_SUSPEND user. In order for this to be safe, the wakeup device driver +must be able to discern spurious IRQs from genuine wakeup events (signalling +the latter to the core with pm_system_wakeup()), must use enable_irq_wake() to +ensure that the IRQ will function as a wakeup source, and must request the IRQ +with IRQF_COND_SUSPEND to tell the core that it meets these requirements. If +these requirements are not met, it is not valid to use IRQF_COND_SUSPEND. |