On 12/03/2015 08:13 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> [151201 06:07]: >> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> From: Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@xxxxxxx> >>> >>> The IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag is used to identify the interrupts that should >>> be left enabled so as to allow them to work as expected during the >>> suspend-resume cycle, but doesn't guarantee that it will wake the system >>> from a suspended state, enable_irq_wake is recommended to be used for >>> the wakeup. >>> >>> This patch removes the use of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flags replacing it with >>> irq_set_irq_wake instead. >>> >>> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: linux-gpio@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> >> >> I need Tony's ACK on this as well. > > At least on omaps, this controller is always powered and we never want to > suspend it as it handles wake-up events for all the IO pins. And that > usecase sounds exactly like what you're describing above. > > I don't quite follow what your suggested alternative for an interrupt > controller is? > > At least we need to have the alternative patched in with this chage before > just removing IRQF_NO_SUSPEND. > > The enable_irq_wake is naturally used for the consumer drivers of this > interrupt controller and actually mostly done automatically now with the > dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq. > I think, this patch should not break our wake-up functionality. It will just change the moment when pcs_irq_handler() will be called: before this change: - suspend_enter() .... - arch_suspend_enable_irqs(); - ^ right here after this change: - suspend_enter() .... dpm_resume_noirq() - resume_device_irqs() ^ here Correct? And as for me this is more safe. -- regards, -grygorii -- 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