On 18/03/16 14:40, Jon Hunter wrote: > On 18/03/16 14:23, Grygorii Strashko wrote: >> On 03/18/2016 02:27 PM, Jon Hunter wrote: >>> >>> On 18/03/16 11:11, Grygorii Strashko wrote: [snip] >> oh :( That will require updating of all drivers (and if it will be taken into account that >> wakeup can be configured from sysfs + devm_ - it will be painful). > > Will it? I know that there are a few gpio chips that have some hacked > ways to get around the PM issue, but I wonder how many drivers this > really impacts. What sysfs entries are you referring too? Thinking about this some more, yes I guess it would impact all drivers that use a gpio but don't use it for a wake-up. I could see that could be a few drivers indeed. >>> but it would avoid every irqchip having to >>> handle this themselves and having a custom handler. >> >> irqchip like TI OMAP GPIO will need custom handling any way even if it's not expected >> to be Powered off during Suspend or deep CPUIdle states, simply because its state >> in suspend is unknown - PM state managed automatically (and depends on many factors) >> and wakeup can be handled by special HW in case if GPIO bank was really switched off. >> >>>> I propose do not touch common/generic suspend code now. Any common code can be always >>>> refactored later once there will be real drivers updated to use irqchip RPM >>>> and which will support Suspend. >>> >>> If this is strongly opposed, I would concede to making this a pr_debug() >>> as I think it could be useful. >> >> Probably yes, because most of the drivers now and IRQ PM core are not ready >> for this approach. > > May be this calls for a new flag to not WARN if non-wakeup IRQs are not > freed when entering suspend. Flag or pr_debug()? Jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
