PM: wakeirq: fix wake irq warning in system suspend stage

  When driver registers the wake irq with reverse enable ordering,
the wake irq will be re-enabled when entering system suspend, triggering
an 'Unbalanced enable for IRQ xxx' warning. The wake irq will be
enabled in both dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete() and dev_pm_arm_wake_irq()

To fix this issue, complete the setting of WAKE_IRQ_DEDICATED_ENABLED flag
in dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete() to avoid redundant irq enablement.

Fixes: 8527beb12087 ("PM: sleep: wakeirq: fix wake irq arming")
Signed-off-by: Qingliang Li <qingliang.li@mediatek.com>
---
 drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
  

Hi,

On 28/02/24 07:30, Qingliang Li wrote:
> When driver registers the wake irq with reverse enable ordering,
> the wake irq will be re-enabled when entering system suspend, triggering
> an 'Unbalanced enable for IRQ xxx' warning. The wake irq will be
> enabled in both dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete() and dev_pm_arm_wake_irq()
> 
> To fix this issue, complete the setting of WAKE_IRQ_DEDICATED_ENABLED flag
> in dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete() to avoid redundant irq enablement.


Just trying to understand, why not in dev_pm_arm_wake_irq ?
Is it cuz it's called much after dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete ?
Not sure what's the exact call order, but I am assuming
dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete is more of a runtime thing and
dev_pm_arm_wake_irq happens finally at system suspend?

> 
> Fixes: 8527beb12087 ("PM: sleep: wakeirq: fix wake irq arming")
> Signed-off-by: Qingliang Li <qingliang.li@mediatek.com>
> ---

$subject: Most recent convention used for this file is:
"PM: sleep: wakeirq:  ..."

>   drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c | 4 +++-
>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c
> index 42171f766dcb..5a5a9e978e85 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c
> @@ -313,8 +313,10 @@ void dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete(struct device *dev)
>   		return;
>   
>   	if (wirq->status & WAKE_IRQ_DEDICATED_MANAGED &&
> -	    wirq->status & WAKE_IRQ_DEDICATED_REVERSE)
> +	    wirq->status & WAKE_IRQ_DEDICATED_REVERSE) {
>   		enable_irq(wirq->irq);
> +		wirq->status |= WAKE_IRQ_DEDICATED_ENABLED;
> +	}

But this does make sense to make sure status is updated,
You can pick my R-by.

Reviewed-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>
  

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 10:00:40AM +0800, Qingliang Li wrote:
> When driver registers the wake irq with reverse enable ordering,
> the wake irq will be re-enabled when entering system suspend, triggering
> an 'Unbalanced enable for IRQ xxx' warning. The wake irq will be
> enabled in both dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete() and dev_pm_arm_wake_irq()
> 
> To fix this issue, complete the setting of WAKE_IRQ_DEDICATED_ENABLED flag
> in dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete() to avoid redundant irq enablement.
> 
> Fixes: 8527beb12087 ("PM: sleep: wakeirq: fix wake irq arming")
> Signed-off-by: Qingliang Li <qingliang.li@mediatek.com>
> ---
>  drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c
> index 42171f766dcb..5a5a9e978e85 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c
> @@ -313,8 +313,10 @@ void dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete(struct device *dev)
>  		return;
>  
>  	if (wirq->status & WAKE_IRQ_DEDICATED_MANAGED &&
> -	    wirq->status & WAKE_IRQ_DEDICATED_REVERSE)
> +	    wirq->status & WAKE_IRQ_DEDICATED_REVERSE) {
>  		enable_irq(wirq->irq);
> +		wirq->status |= WAKE_IRQ_DEDICATED_ENABLED;
> +	}
>  }
>  
>  /**
> -- 
> 2.25.1
> 

Hi,

This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman.  You have sent him
a patch that has triggered this response.  He used to manually respond
to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
created.  Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
kernel tree.

You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
as indicated below:


- You have marked a patch with a "Fixes:" tag for a commit that is in an
  older released kernel, yet you do not have a cc: stable line in the
  signed-off-by area at all, which means that the patch will not be
  applied to any older kernel releases.  To properly fix this, please
  follow the documented rules in the
  Documentation/process/stable-kernel-rules.rst file for how to resolve
  this.

If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
from other developers.

thanks,

greg k-h's patch email bot
  

On Wed, 2024-02-28 at 11:34 +0530, Dhruva Gole wrote:
>  	 
> External email : Please do not click links or open attachments until
> you have verified the sender or the content.
>  Hi,
> 
> On 28/02/24 07:30, Qingliang Li wrote:
> > When driver registers the wake irq with reverse enable ordering,
> > the wake irq will be re-enabled when entering system suspend,
> triggering
> > an 'Unbalanced enable for IRQ xxx' warning. The wake irq will be
> > enabled in both dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete() and
> dev_pm_arm_wake_irq()
> > 
> > To fix this issue, complete the setting of
> WAKE_IRQ_DEDICATED_ENABLED flag
> > in dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete() to avoid redundant irq
> enablement.
> 
> 
> Just trying to understand, why not in dev_pm_arm_wake_irq ?
> Is it cuz it's called much after dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete ?
> Not sure what's the exact call order, but I am assuming
> dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete is more of a runtime thing and
> dev_pm_arm_wake_irq happens finally at system suspend?

You are right, the involvement of 'dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete' is
due to the driver selecting 'pm_runtime_force_suspend' as the callback
function for system suspend. In this scenario, the call sequence during
system suspend is as follows:
dpm_suspend_start -> dpm_run_callback -> pm_runtime_force_suspend ->
dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_check/complete
suspend_enter -> dpm_suspend_noirq -> dev_pm_arm_wake_irq

Based on the above, if the driver (i) chooses pm_runtime_force_suspend
as the system suspend callback function and (ii) registers wake irq
with reverse enable ordering, the wake irq will be enabled twice during
system suspend.

> 
> > 
> > Fixes: 8527beb12087 ("PM: sleep: wakeirq: fix wake irq arming")
> > Signed-off-by: Qingliang Li <qingliang.li@mediatek.com>
> > ---
> 
> $subject: Most recent convention used for this file is:
> "PM: sleep: wakeirq:  ..."

I'm sorry, but what is the problem with the description of the "Fixed"
field? I didn't get your point and I wrote it according to the previous
patches.

> 
> >   drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c | 4 +++-
> >   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c
> b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c
> > index 42171f766dcb..5a5a9e978e85 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeirq.c
> > @@ -313,8 +313,10 @@ void dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete(struct
> device *dev)
> >   return;
> >   
> >   if (wirq->status & WAKE_IRQ_DEDICATED_MANAGED &&
> > -    wirq->status & WAKE_IRQ_DEDICATED_REVERSE)
> > +    wirq->status & WAKE_IRQ_DEDICATED_REVERSE) {
> >   enable_irq(wirq->irq);
> > +wirq->status |= WAKE_IRQ_DEDICATED_ENABLED;
> > +}
> 
> But this does make sense to make sure status is updated,
> You can pick my R-by.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Dhruva Gole <d-gole@ti.com>
> 
> -- 
> Thanks and Regards,
> Dhruva Gole
  

Hello,

On 28/02/24 14:03, Qingliang Li (黎晴亮) wrote:
> On Wed, 2024-02-28 at 11:34 +0530, Dhruva Gole wrote:
>>   	
>> External email : Please do not click links or open attachments until
>> you have verified the sender or the content.
>>   Hi,
>>
>> On 28/02/24 07:30, Qingliang Li wrote:
>>> When driver registers the wake irq with reverse enable ordering,
>>> the wake irq will be re-enabled when entering system suspend,
>> triggering
>>> an 'Unbalanced enable for IRQ xxx' warning. The wake irq will be
>>> enabled in both dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete() and
>> dev_pm_arm_wake_irq()
>>>
>>> To fix this issue, complete the setting of
>> WAKE_IRQ_DEDICATED_ENABLED flag
>>> in dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete() to avoid redundant irq
>> enablement.
>>
>>
>> Just trying to understand, why not in dev_pm_arm_wake_irq ?
>> Is it cuz it's called much after dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete ?
>> Not sure what's the exact call order, but I am assuming
>> dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete is more of a runtime thing and
>> dev_pm_arm_wake_irq happens finally at system suspend?
> 
> You are right, the involvement of 'dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete' is
> due to the driver selecting 'pm_runtime_force_suspend' as the callback
> function for system suspend. In this scenario, the call sequence during
> system suspend is as follows:
> dpm_suspend_start -> dpm_run_callback -> pm_runtime_force_suspend ->
> dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_check/complete
> suspend_enter -> dpm_suspend_noirq -> dev_pm_arm_wake_irq

OK this is what I expected, thanks for clarifying!

> 
> Based on the above, if the driver (i) chooses pm_runtime_force_suspend
> as the system suspend callback function and (ii) registers wake irq
> with reverse enable ordering, the wake irq will be enabled twice during
> system suspend.

Yep, makes sense

> 
>>
>>>
>>> Fixes: 8527beb12087 ("PM: sleep: wakeirq: fix wake irq arming")
>>> Signed-off-by: Qingliang Li <qingliang.li@mediatek.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> $subject: Most recent convention used for this file is:
>> "PM: sleep: wakeirq:  ..."
> 
> I'm sorry, but what is the problem with the description of the "Fixed"
> field? I didn't get your point and I wrote it according to the previous
> patches.

I am not talking about your "Fixed", I am taking about the subject line
of the patch.
You've used "PM: wakeirq: fix wake ..."

Instead use
"PM: sleep: wakeirq: fix wake ..."

No strong objections here, it's just a nit.

[..snip..]
  

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 9:33 AM Qingliang Li (黎晴亮)
<Qingliang.Li@mediatek.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2024-02-28 at 11:34 +0530, Dhruva Gole wrote:
> >
> > External email : Please do not click links or open attachments until
> > you have verified the sender or the content.
> >  Hi,
> >
> > On 28/02/24 07:30, Qingliang Li wrote:
> > > When driver registers the wake irq with reverse enable ordering,
> > > the wake irq will be re-enabled when entering system suspend,
> > triggering
> > > an 'Unbalanced enable for IRQ xxx' warning. The wake irq will be
> > > enabled in both dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete() and
> > dev_pm_arm_wake_irq()
> > >
> > > To fix this issue, complete the setting of
> > WAKE_IRQ_DEDICATED_ENABLED flag
> > > in dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete() to avoid redundant irq
> > enablement.
> >
> >
> > Just trying to understand, why not in dev_pm_arm_wake_irq ?
> > Is it cuz it's called much after dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete ?
> > Not sure what's the exact call order, but I am assuming
> > dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete is more of a runtime thing and
> > dev_pm_arm_wake_irq happens finally at system suspend?
>
> You are right, the involvement of 'dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_complete' is
> due to the driver selecting 'pm_runtime_force_suspend' as the callback
> function for system suspend. In this scenario, the call sequence during
> system suspend is as follows:
> dpm_suspend_start -> dpm_run_callback -> pm_runtime_force_suspend ->
> dev_pm_enable_wake_irq_check/complete
> suspend_enter -> dpm_suspend_noirq -> dev_pm_arm_wake_irq
>
> Based on the above, if the driver (i) chooses pm_runtime_force_suspend
> as the system suspend callback function and (ii) registers wake irq
> with reverse enable ordering, the wake irq will be enabled twice during
> system suspend.

It would be good to put the above information into the patch
changelog, as it actually explains the problem.

Thanks!