lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jan]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] gpio: dln2: fix issue when an IRQ is unmasked then enabled
From
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Octavian Purdila
> > <octavian.purdila@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >> As noticed during suspend/resume operations, the IRQ can be unmasked
> >> then disabled in suspend and eventually enabled in resume, but without
> >> being unmasked.
> >>
> >> The current implementation does not take into account interactions
> >> between mask/unmask and enable/disable interrupts, and thus in the
> >> above scenarios the IRQs remain unactive.
> >>
> >> To fix this we removed the enable/disable operations as they fallback
> >> to mask/unmask anyway.
> >>
> >> We also remove the pending bitmaks as it is already done in irq_data
> >> (i.e. IRQS_PENDING).
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@intel.com>
> >
> > Patch applied for fixes.
>
> Bah now that I see there are several versions of the patch set
> floating around and also MFD patches I don't quite understand
> how acute this is or how it's to be applied.

Hi Linus,

Oops I did not noticed you applied the first version. It should not
matter anyway since I did not make any modifications to the GPIO
patches in the second version - I just doubled checked it now.

>
> - Are these regression fixes or nice to have for next kernel
> release?
>

The first patch is a fix. The second is more of a cleanup patch.

> - Are the GPIO patches independent of the MFD patch?
>

Yes, the GPIO patches are independent of the MFD patches.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-01-05 12:01    [W:0.036 / U:0.832 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site