Hello Doug,
On 06/26/2014 06:12 PM, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Javier,
>
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 4:13 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas
> <javier.martinez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> +
>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM_SLEEP
>>>> +static int max77802_suspend(struct device *dev)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct i2c_client *i2c = container_of(dev, struct i2c_client, dev);
>>>> + struct max77802_dev *max77802 = i2c_get_clientdata(i2c);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (device_may_wakeup(dev))
>>>> + enable_irq_wake(max77802->irq);
>>>> +
>>>> + disable_irq(max77802->irq);
>>>
>>> Can you add short comment why this is needed? I know why but just for
>>> future generations which will wonder: "why do we need to disable the IRQ
>>> while suspending?" :). Especially that this is rather a workaround for
>>> issue in other driver (I2C bus).
>>>
>>
>> Good idea, I'll add a comment here on next version so code archaeologists can
>> figure out what what's going on here.
>
> Is the disable_irq() needed if you have
> <https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4421891/>?
>
Probably not but I added the following comment:
/*
* The IRQ must be disabled during suspend since due wakeup
* ordering issues it may be possible that the I2C controller
* is still suspended when the interrupt happens so the IRQ
* handler will fail to read the I2C bus.
*/
disable_irq(max77802->irq);
since in theory this PMIC can be used in other SoCs besides
Exynos5420/Exynos5800 and it may be possible that the I2C controller driver for
these other SoCs may not resume at noirq time.
But on a second thought, this PMIC seems to be designed specially for these two
Exynos SoCs so I guess it's safe to assume that it is not needed?
Best regards,
Javier
--
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
