Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: qcom: Fix wakeirq map by removing disconnected irqs for sm8150
From: Navya Malempati
Date: Fri Apr 24 2026 - 02:29:01 EST
On 4/23/2026 6:09 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2026 at 05:21:01PM +0530, Navya Malempati wrote:
From: Maulik Shah <maulik.shah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
PDC interrupts 122-125 were meant for ibi_i3c wakeup but sm8150 do not
support i3c. GPIOs 39,51,88 and 144 are also connected to different PDC
pin and already reflected in the wake irq map.
Remove the unsupported wakeup interrupts from the map.
Fixes: 90337380c809 ("pinctrl: qcom: sm8150: Specify PDC map")
Signed-off-by: Maulik Shah <maulik.shah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Navya Malempati <navya.malempati@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sm8150.c | 23 +++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sm8150.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sm8150.c
index 0767261f5149..81c08b18ac71 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sm8150.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sm8150.c
@@ -1493,18 +1493,17 @@ static const struct msm_gpio_wakeirq_map sm8150_pdc_map[] = {
{ 3, 31 }, { 5, 32 }, { 8, 33 }, { 9, 34 }, { 10, 100 },
{ 12, 104 }, { 24, 37 }, { 26, 38 }, { 27, 41 }, { 28, 42 },
{ 30, 39 }, { 36, 43 }, { 37, 44 }, { 38, 30 }, { 39, 118 },
- { 39, 125 }, { 41, 47 }, { 42, 48 }, { 46, 50 }, { 47, 49 },
- { 48, 51 }, { 49, 53 }, { 50, 52 }, { 51, 116 }, { 51, 123 },
- { 53, 54 }, { 54, 55 }, { 55, 56 }, { 56, 57 }, { 58, 58 },
- { 60, 60 }, { 61, 61 }, { 68, 62 }, { 70, 63 }, { 76, 71 },
- { 77, 66 }, { 81, 64 }, { 83, 65 }, { 86, 67 }, { 87, 84 },
- { 88, 117 }, { 88, 124 }, { 90, 69 }, { 91, 70 }, { 93, 75 },
- { 95, 72 }, { 96, 73 }, { 97, 74 }, { 101, 40 }, { 103, 77 },
- { 104, 78 }, { 108, 79 }, { 112, 80 }, { 113, 81 }, { 114, 82 },
- { 117, 85 }, { 118, 101 }, { 119, 87 }, { 120, 88 }, { 121, 89 },
- { 122, 90 }, { 123, 91 }, { 124, 92 }, { 125, 93 }, { 129, 94 },
- { 132, 105 }, { 133, 83 }, { 134, 36 }, { 136, 97 }, { 142, 103 },
- { 144, 115 }, { 144, 122 }, { 147, 102 }, { 150, 107 },
+ { 41, 47 }, { 42, 48 }, { 46, 50 }, { 47, 49 }, { 48, 51 },
+ { 49, 53 }, { 50, 52 }, { 51, 116 }, { 53, 54 }, { 54, 55 },
+ { 55, 56 }, { 56, 57 }, { 58, 58 }, { 60, 60 }, { 61, 61 },
+ { 68, 62 }, { 70, 63 }, { 76, 71 }, { 77, 66 }, { 81, 64 },
+ { 83, 65 }, { 86, 67 }, { 87, 84 }, { 88, 117 }, { 90, 69 },
+ { 91, 70 }, { 93, 75 }, { 95, 72 }, { 96, 73 }, { 97, 74 },
+ { 101, 40 }, { 103, 77 }, { 104, 78 }, { 108, 79 }, { 112, 80 },
+ { 113, 81 }, { 114, 82 }, { 117, 85 }, { 118, 101 }, { 119, 87 },
+ { 120, 88 }, { 121, 89 }, { 122, 90 }, { 123, 91 }, { 124, 92 },
+ { 125, 93 }, { 129, 94 }, { 132, 105 }, { 133, 83 }, { 134, 36 },
+ { 136, 97 }, { 142, 103 }, { 144, 115 }, { 147, 102 }, { 150, 107 },
Is there a chance of mimimising the diff here? It is harder to read than
your v1.
This is v1.
True, it is little difficult to read since multiple lines have been changed to re-adjust fitting of 5 entries in single line, otherwise it may look non uniform across lines.
Thanks,
Navya