On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Doug Berger <opendmb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/03/2017 07:10 PM, Gregory Fong wrote: >> Hi Doug, >> >> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Doug Berger <opendmb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Mask the GPIO interrupt while its type is being changed, just in case >>> it can prevent a spurious interrupt. >> >> "Just in case"? I don't have access to hardware documentation for >> this anymore, but I'd expect to some stronger claim that the hardware >> actually requires masking before changing the trigger type. If you >> can quote documentation for this or explain an actual problem seen, >> that would be good. > > Well spotted ;). This was a protectionist change added at the request > of a user of the driver. I believe that it is superfluous and I suppose > that belief leaked through in the language of my comment. > > In actuality, the GPIO APIs don't make provision for clearing GPIO > interrupts before enabling them so this masking is really only a > deferral of a spurious interrupt if one is triggered by changes in the > hardware programming. Indeed. If the hardware is behaving in unexpected ways that would be a whole different kind of problem. > > I can strike this from the upstream submission and save a couple lines > of source code (after IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND goes away) if you prefer. > Yes, please remove. Thanks, Gregory -- 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