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    [W:3.700 / U:0.148 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site