On 11/06/2014 08:15 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > sounds good to me *IF* omap8250_enable_wakeup (wakeirq handling) is > the way we want to continue doing things for daisychain? -> Tony, can > you comment? > http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=141222144402707&w=2 > > I wonder if wakeirq explicit handling is valid anymore and something > given the potential race and alternate approach proposed? The wakeirq logic is already in the driver. So if we go for the alternate approach, the pinctrl patch is obsolete? Or does it mean we get rid of the map8250_enable_wakeup() including the second irq we have now (and keep the pinctl change)? Sebastian -- 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
