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. Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
