Re: [PATCH RESEND v1 2/5] drivers: pinctrl: msm: enable PDC interrupt only during suspend

[Lina Iyer]

On Mon, Aug 20 2018 at 09:34 -0600, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 20/08/18 16:26, Lina Iyer wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 18 2018 at 07:13 -0600, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > > Hi Lina,
> > >
> > > On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 20:10:23 +0100,
> > > Lina Iyer <ilina@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > > @@ -920,6 +928,8 @@ static int msm_gpio_pdc_pin_request(struct irq_data *d)
> > > >  	}
> > > >
> > > >  	irq_set_handler_data(d->irq, irq_get_irq_data(irq));
> > > > +	irq_set_handler_data(irq, d);
> > > > +	irq_set_status_flags(irq, IRQ_DISABLE_UNLAZY);
> > >
> > > Could you explain what this is trying to do? I'm trying to understand
> > > this code, but this function isn't in 4.18...
> > Oh, I have been able to test only on 4.14 so far. The flag does seem to
> > exist at least, I didn't get a compiler error.
> >
> > I read this in kernel/irq/chip.c -
> >
> > If the interrupt chip does not implement the irq_disable callback,
> > a driver can disable the lazy approach for a particular irq line by
> > calling 'irq_set_status_flags(irq, IRQ_DISABLE_UNLAZY)'. This can
> > be used for devices which cannot disable the interrupt at the
> > device level under certain circumstances and have to use
> > disable_irq[_nosync] instead.
> >
> > And interpreted this as something that this would prevent 'relaxed'
> > disable. I am enabling and disabling the IRQ in suspend path, that I
> > thought this would help avoid issues caused by late disable. Am I
> > mistaken?
>
> Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I'm talking about what you're trying to do
> in this particular function (msm_gpio_pdc_pin_request), which doesn't
> exist in 4.18. Short of having a bit of context, I can hardly review this.
Sorry, my patch generation during the resend is messed up. Seems like I
didn't send that patch out during the resend.

-- Lina