Re: [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: single: remove misuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag

[Tony Lindgren]

* Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> [151201 06:07]:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > From: Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > The IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag is used to identify the interrupts that should
> > be left enabled so as to allow them to work as expected during the
> > suspend-resume cycle, but doesn't guarantee that it will wake the system
> > from a suspended state, enable_irq_wake is recommended to be used for
> > the wakeup.
> >
> > This patch removes the use of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flags replacing it with
> > irq_set_irq_wake instead.
> >
> > Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: linux-gpio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>
> 
> I need Tony's ACK on this as well.

At least on omaps, this controller is always powered and we never want to
suspend it as it handles wake-up events for all the IO pins. And that
usecase sounds exactly like what you're describing above.

I don't quite follow what your suggested alternative for an interrupt
controller is?

At least we need to have the alternative patched in with this chage before
just removing IRQF_NO_SUSPEND.

The enable_irq_wake is naturally used for the consumer drivers of this
interrupt controller and actually mostly done automatically now with the
dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq.

Regards,

Tony
--
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/