Re: [PATCH 15/17] ir-hix5hd2: drop the use of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND

[zhangfei]

On 09/23/2015 07:37 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On 23/09/15 15:26, zhangfei wrote:
> > On 09/21/2015 08:47 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> > > This driver doesn't claim the IR transmitter to be wakeup source. It
> > > even disables the clock and the IR during suspend-resume cycle.
> > >
> > > This patch removes yet another misuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND.
> > >
> > > Cc: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@xxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Guoxiong Yan <yanguoxiong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>

Acked-by: Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@xxxxxxxxxx>

> > > ---
> > >    drivers/media/rc/ir-hix5hd2.c | 2 +-
> > >    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/media/rc/ir-hix5hd2.c
> > > b/drivers/media/rc/ir-hix5hd2.c
> > > index 1c087cb76815..d0549fba711c 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/media/rc/ir-hix5hd2.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/media/rc/ir-hix5hd2.c
> > > @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ static int hix5hd2_ir_probe(struct
> > > platform_device *pdev)
> > >            goto clkerr;
> > >
> > >        if (devm_request_irq(dev, priv->irq, hix5hd2_ir_rx_interrupt,
> > > -                 IRQF_NO_SUSPEND, pdev->name, priv) < 0) {
> > > +                 0, pdev->name, priv) < 0) {
> > >            dev_err(dev, "IRQ %d register failed\n", priv->irq);
> > >            ret = -EINVAL;
> > >            goto regerr;
> >
> > ir is wakeup source for hix5hd2, so we use IRQF_NO_SUSPEND.
>
> OK, but from the existing implementation of suspend/resume callbacks, I
> read that the clocks as well as the IP block is powered off. Is part of
> the logic always-on ?
>
> > However, it is true the wakeup mechanism is not realized on hix5hd2 yet.
>
> OK, then I assume you can add the right APIs(enable_irq_wake and
> friends) when you add that feature.
>
> > I am fine with either using IRQF_NO_SUSPEND or not.
>
> No using IRQF_NO_SUSPEND for wakeup is simply wrong and hence this patch
> series removes all those misuse. If you need it as wakeup, then you need
> to use right APIs for that. Since I don't see any support for wakeup in
> this driver I decided to just remove the flag. Please feel free to add
> the support making use of right APIs.

Thanks Sudeep for the kind info.
Yes, you are right.

Thanks
--
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/