On 28/4/2019 7:36 PM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 09:18:46AM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: >> On 23/4/2019 10:41 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 06:51:32AM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: >>>> Hi Dmitry, >>>> >>>> On 23/4/2019 5:17 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 10:35:40AM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: >>>>>> For systems in which the touch IRQ is acting as wakeup source, the interrupt >>>>>> controller might not latch the GPIO IRQ during sleep. In such cases, the >>>>>> interrupt will never occur again after resume, hence the touch screen >>>>>> appears dead. >>>>>> >>>>>> To fix this, call into eeti_ts_read() once to read the hardware status and >>>>>> to arm the IRQ again. >>>>> >>>>> Can you instead make the interrupt level-triggered? >>>> >>>> The hardware I'm working on doesn't support that unfortunately. >>>> >>>> In fact, the whole attn-gpio dance is there because of that, and the >>>> GPIO descriptor maps to the same pin that also causes the IRQ in my case. >>> >>> OK, if the interrupt controller is incapable of dealing with level >>> interrupts then we have to do what you propose. >> >> So you consider these patches for inclusion then? I'm just asking >> because I can't see them in your tree yet. > > I was about to, but now I wonder if we need a mutex in the isr code now, > otherwise there is a chance it will be running concurrently when we are > resuming if interrupt does latch. Actually, to address that, all we need to do is call into eeti_ts_read() before enable_irq(). See my v2. Thanks, Daniel
