On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 alternate approach, the pinctrl patch is obsolete?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)? based on Thomas's feedback we should probably not carry forward wakeirq as a seperate irq with it's own request_irq instead it psuedo triggers uart's interrupt irq -> I am not clear about the direction Tony wants drivers to take in the approach in the thread above - all I wondered was if it had any conflict of pin_sleep -> if the generic handler retriggers the irq before the suspend_handler, then configuring sleep is gonna break daisychain support. not sure if there is any specific direction drivers should take. Again, Tony is the right guy to comment about this. -- --- Regards, Nishanth Menon -- 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
