lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH 13/17] net: gianfar: remove misuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag
Date
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sudeep Holla [mailto:sudeep.holla@arm.com]
>Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 6:47 PM
>To: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
>Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>; Thomas Gleixner
><tglx@linutronix.de>; Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@rjwysocki.net>; David S. Miller
><davem@davemloft.net>; Manoil Claudiu-B08782
><claudiu.manoil@freescale.com>; Kevin Hao <haokexin@gmail.com>;
>netdev@vger.kernel.org
>Subject: [PATCH 13/17] net: gianfar: remove misuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND
>flag
>
>The device is set as wakeup capable using proper wakeup API but the
>driver misuses IRQF_NO_SUSPEND to set the interrupt as wakeup source
>which is incorrect.
>
>This patch removes the use of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flags replacing it with
>enable_irq_wake instead.
>

What would be the purpose of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag then? The flag is a
friendlier API compared to calling enable_irq_wake(). For older kernels,
on PPC architectures, the flag did the job. When did this change? Since
when using IRQF_NO_SUSPEND is a "misuse"?

Thanks,
Claudiu


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-21 19:21    [from the cache]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and my Meterkast|Read the blog