Re: [PATCH 1/3] gpio: dln2: fix issue when an IRQ is unmasked then enabled

[Octavian Purdila]

On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Octavian Purdila
> > <octavian.purdila@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> As noticed during suspend/resume operations, the IRQ can be unmasked
> >> then disabled in suspend and eventually enabled in resume, but without
> >> being unmasked.
> >>
> >> The current implementation does not take into account interactions
> >> between mask/unmask and enable/disable interrupts, and thus in the
> >> above scenarios the IRQs remain unactive.
> >>
> >> To fix this we removed the enable/disable operations as they fallback
> >> to mask/unmask anyway.
> >>
> >> We also remove the pending bitmaks as it is already done in irq_data
> >> (i.e. IRQS_PENDING).
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Patch applied for fixes.
>
> Bah now that I see there are several versions of the patch set
> floating around and also MFD patches I don't quite understand
> how acute this is or how it's to be applied.

Hi Linus,

Oops I did not noticed you applied the first version. It should not
matter anyway since I did not make any modifications to the GPIO
patches in the second version - I just doubled checked it now.

>
> - Are these regression fixes or nice to have for next kernel
>  release?
>

The first patch is a fix. The second is more of a cleanup patch.

> - Are the GPIO patches independent of the MFD patch?
>

Yes, the GPIO patches are independent of the MFD patches.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/