On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 4:16 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 12/09/15 10:50, maoguang meng wrote: >> hi Sudeep: >> >> I test flowlling your blow suggestions,but the system can not be woken. >> >> beacuse,mtk_eint_suspend will mask it.As we know if eint wakeup system >> it must be unmasked before enter suspend flow. >> >> e.x >> >> static int __maybe_unused elan_suspend(struct device *dev) >> { >> struct i2c_client *client = to_i2c_client(dev); >> struct elan_tp_data *data = i2c_get_clientdata(client); >> int ret; >> >> /* >> * We are taking the mutex to make sure sysfs operations are >> * complete before we attempt to bring the device into low[er] >> * power mode. >> */ >> ret = mutex_lock_interruptible(&data->sysfs_mutex); >> if (ret) >> return ret; >> >> disable_irq(client->irq); >> >> if (device_may_wakeup(dev)) { >> ret = elan_sleep(data); >> /* Enable wake from IRQ */ >> data->irq_wake = (enable_irq_wake(client->irq) == 0); > > This is wrong assumption in the driver. enable_irq_wake doesn't > implicitly enable the IRQ. So the disable_irq should be moved to else. > And the resume patch also needs to be fixed accordingly, otherwise you > may get unbalanced irq. But this should not be the reason for fixing the > pinctrl suspend/resume. > Elan driver does not want to enable servicing IRQs, it just wants to configure them as wakeup sources. Hence the current elan_suspend() is fine. When system wakes up and the device is resumed and the driver is ready to service interrupts it will enable IRQ again. IOW enable_irq_wake() and enable_irq() are 2 completely different calls and it is perfectly fine to disable IRQ and then ebale it as a wakeup source. Thanks. -- Dmitry -- 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