On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> This should be moved to the commit message I think. > > So that's why I put it below the "---". So it was below the --- and that is why I ask you to move this useful information above the --- and into the commit message. >>> - irq_set_irq_wake(p->irq_parent, on); >>> + int error; >>> + >>> + if (p->irq_parent) { >>> + error = irq_set_irq_wake(p->irq_parent, on); >>> + if (error) { >>> + dev_dbg(&p->pdev->dev, >>> + "irq %u doesn't support irq_set_wake\n", >>> + p->irq_parent); >>> + p->irq_parent = 0; >>> + } >>> + } >> >> Does the SH maintainers really like this... Warning >> appear once and is squelched. >> >> Isn't it better to make sure it doesn't happen or something. >> >> It looks hacky. Any other suggestions? > > The first call to irq_set_irq_wake() (on = true) doesn't print a warning. > It returns an error code, to indicate that the operation is not supported. > > Calling irq_set_irq_wake() again (on = false, during resume) would print > a warning, as it wouldn't match internal state ("Unbalanced IRQ 26 wake > disable"). That one is gone now. Yeah :/ There are a few different patches floating for irq_set_wake() things and some seem to be causing regressions, I just want some broader discussion on how we solve this across all platforms. Maybe the GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP should handle the set_wake() similarly for all chips? >> Also, please convert this driver to use GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP >> like everyone else. > > What old branch are you looking at, that it doesn't have commit > c7f3c5d3ac2d6831 ("gpio: rcar: Switch to use gpiolib irqchip helpers") > yet ;-)? Argh sorry. (And that was an awesome patch.) Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html