Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 5 Jan 2015 20:42:48 +1000 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] gpio: dln2: fix issue when an IRQ is unmasked then enabled | From | Octavian Purdila <> |
| |
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.
| |