Hi Uwe, > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 08:41:18AM +0000, Sherry Sun wrote: > > Hi Uwe, > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Sent: 2021年11月23日 15:42 > > > To: Sherry Sun <sherry.sun@xxxxxxx> > > > Cc: gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jirislaby@xxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > > serial@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; dl-linux-imx > > > <linux- imx@xxxxxxx> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: serial: imx: clear RTSD status before > > > suspend > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 03:03:49PM +0800, Sherry Sun wrote: > > > > From: Fugang Duan <fugang.duan@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Clear RTSD status before suspend due to the port also use RTS pin > > > > as wakeup source, need to clear the flag first. > > > > > > I'd write: > > > > > > Clear RTSD status before enabling the irq event for RTSD. > > > > Thanks for the suggestion, I will reorganize the commit message and send > V2. > > > > > > > > That this happens in the context of suspend isn't that important. > > > > Sorry I didn't get the point here, can you please explain more? > > Per my understanding, the wakeup source interrupt is handled in the > > suspend context, so clear the flag in the suspend context is also > > necessary. > > But the actual problem is that RTSD is enabled without first clearing it and > not that RTSD isn't cleared in suspend. > > So my initial reaction after reading the commit log header "clear RTSD status > before suspend" was: WTH, why do we need clearing RTSD before suspend. > Shouldn't the RTSD state kept over suspend? > > In contrast clearing an event before the respecive irq is enabled is more > obviously correct. And if the irq source is enabled as part of suspend or open > isn't that relevant for the subject line. > Got your point now, thanks for the explanation. The patch subject is indeed ambiguous, I will fix it in V2. Best regards Sherry
