On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 01:34:39AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 10 Jun 2014, Brian Norris wrote: > > Other random thought: it seems like any irqchip driver which does lazy IRQ > > masking ought to use IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND. So maybe the IRQ core should just > > do something like: > > > > if (!chip->irq_disable) > > chip->flags |= IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND; > > No. Lazy irq disable and the suspend logic are different beasts. OK, fair enough. Drop that random thought then. It's not in the patch content anyway. > That's up to the platform to decide this. Just for the record: there > is a world outside of ARM... OK. But GIC is ARM-specific, so we can still constrain this patch and related topics to the world of ARM. > But that brings me to a different question: > > Why are you not putting that customization into the device tree > instead of trying to add this to some random arch/arm/mach-foo > files? I'm not adding customization to arch/arm/mach-foo files. I'm trying to remove it. This property could be added to device tree, if there was really a valid use case for a GIC which leaves its interrupts unmasked for suspend. My question in this patch is essentially: does such a use case exist? Brian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
