Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: single: remove misuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag | From | Sudeep Holla <> | Date | Fri, 4 Dec 2015 11:21:51 +0000 |
| |
On 04/12/15 11:18, Grygorii Strashko wrote: > On 12/04/2015 12:54 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> Hi Grygorii, >> >> On 04/12/15 10:44, Grygorii Strashko wrote: >>> On 12/03/2015 11:37 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>>> And these both need to be applied together when we have a fix for the >>>> above >>>> as otherwise we'll get the lock recursion Sudeep mentioned in patch 2/2. >>>> >>> >>> Most probably below diff will fix above issue: >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c >>> b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c >>> index 3fc2cbe..69cde67 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c >>> @@ -338,6 +338,7 @@ int omap_prcm_register_chain_handler(struct >>> omap_prcm_irq_setup *irq_setup) >>> ct->chip.irq_ack = irq_gc_ack_set_bit; >>> ct->chip.irq_mask = irq_gc_mask_clr_bit; >>> ct->chip.irq_unmask = irq_gc_mask_set_bit; >>> + ct->chip.flags = IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE; >> >> Thanks for testing. > > Sry, I've not tested it yet - it's just fast assumption :( >
OK, no worries.
>> In that case without this hunk, we should get error >> from pcs_irq_set_wake in the suspend path. No ? May be driver is not >> checking the error value and entering suspend. >> > > Yep. Noone is checking return result from enable_irq_wake() in suspend path > (see dev_pm_arm_wake_irq()). >
True, but one possible reason for the warning Tony posted.
> Actually, return result of enable_irq_wake() is checked only in ~30% of > cases in kernel now :) >
That's bad, but I admit that even I failed to add check in some of the patches I posted earlier.
-- Regards, Sudeep
| |