Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 12/17] ARM: OMAP2+: remove misuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag | From | Sudeep Holla <> | Date | Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:20:15 +0100 |
| |
On 13/10/15 15:53, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> [151013 03:46]: >> >> >> On 12/10/15 21:28, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>> * Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> [151012 13:27]: >>>> * Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> [150921 08:52]: >>>>> The IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag is used to identify the interrupts that should >>>>> be left enabled so as to allow them to work as expected during the >>>>> suspend-resume cycle, but doesn't guarantee that it will wake the system >>>> >from a suspended state, enable_irq_wake is recommended to be used for >>>>> the wakeup. >>>>> >>>>> This patch removes the use of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flags replacing it with >>>>> enable_irq_wake instead. >>>> >>>> Applying into omap-for-v4.4/cleanup thanks. >>> >>> Actually I don't think this does the right thing. The interrupts >>> in the $subject patch are in the always on powerdomain, and we really >> >> Agreed >> >>> want them to be excluded from the suspend. >>> >> >> OK but what's wrong with this patch. At-least the name suggest it's a >> wakeup interrupt. And using IRQF_NO_SUSPEND for the wakeup interrupt is >> simply wrong. > > Hmm so if we have a separate always on irq controller for the wake-up events > and we want to keep it always on and exclude it from any suspend related > things.. Why would we not use IRQF_NO_SUSPEND on it? > > Above you say "The IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag is used to identify the interrupts > that should be left enabled so as to allow them to work as expected during > the suspend-resume cycle..." and that's exactly what we want to do here :) >
OK if these interrupts meet that criteria to use IRQF_NO_SUSPEND, then it should be fine, my earlier argument was based on the assumption that it's just another wakeup interrupt.
> For the dedicated wake-up interrupts, we have separate registers to enable > and disable them. The $subject irq is the shared interrupt that allows > making use of the pin specific wake-up interrupts, and for those yes we > are using enable_irq_wake(). >
If it's already take care, then fine. I am just hunting all the misuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag especially as wakeup source and fixing them
>>> So not applying without further explanations. >>> >> >> But I don't understand the real need for IRQF_NO_SUSPEND over wakeup APIs ? > > Because in the $subject case we just want to always keep it on and > never suspend it. It's unrelated to the wakeup APIs at least for the > omap related SoCs. >
OK, understood now. Thanks
-- Regards, Sudeep
| |