From: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
To: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
Cc: Tarun Kanti DebBarma <tarun.kanti@ti.com>,
Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>,
linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, "Cousson, Benoit" <b-cousson@ti.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] gpio/omap: fix missing check in *_runtime_suspend()
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 17:10:04 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120518001004.GJ17852@atomide.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87mx56s6nz.fsf@ti.com>
* Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com> [120517 17:00]:
>
> Argh, then $SUBJECT patch here has caused brokeness in multiple ways.
> It managed to break both runtime suspend and runtime resume at the same
> time. :(
>
> The change added by this patch to runtime_suspend effectively disables
> the fix I did in 68942edb09 (gpio/omap: fix wakeups on level-triggered GPIOs)
> causing the sluggish network problems to reappear, since that GPIO IRQ
> is no longer causing wakeups.
>
> Simple fix is below, which just moves the check added in $SUBJECT patch
> below the workaround for the edge/level fix. Can you confirm it works
> on Zoom3 (applies on gpio/next + my previous fix.)
Thanks yes having both of your fixes applied fixes the issues I was
seeing, so for both:
Tested-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
> I didn't notice the same problem on Overo, but I guess it's because
> Overo had some enabled non-wakeup GPIOs in the same bank, so it didn't
> bypass the level-triggered IRQ fix.
Makes sense for why it only appears on some boards.
> In the mean time, they're availble in my for_3.5/fixes/gpio-2 branch.
I'll merge that also into l-o master for some more testing before
the merge window.
Regards,
Tony
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 8/8] gpio/omap: fix missing check in *_runtime_suspend()
Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 17:10:04 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120518001004.GJ17852@atomide.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87mx56s6nz.fsf@ti.com>
* Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com> [120517 17:00]:
>
> Argh, then $SUBJECT patch here has caused brokeness in multiple ways.
> It managed to break both runtime suspend and runtime resume at the same
> time. :(
>
> The change added by this patch to runtime_suspend effectively disables
> the fix I did in 68942edb09 (gpio/omap: fix wakeups on level-triggered GPIOs)
> causing the sluggish network problems to reappear, since that GPIO IRQ
> is no longer causing wakeups.
>
> Simple fix is below, which just moves the check added in $SUBJECT patch
> below the workaround for the edge/level fix. Can you confirm it works
> on Zoom3 (applies on gpio/next + my previous fix.)
Thanks yes having both of your fixes applied fixes the issues I was
seeing, so for both:
Tested-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
> I didn't notice the same problem on Overo, but I guess it's because
> Overo had some enabled non-wakeup GPIOs in the same bank, so it didn't
> bypass the level-triggered IRQ fix.
Makes sense for why it only appears on some boards.
> In the mean time, they're availble in my for_3.5/fixes/gpio-2 branch.
I'll merge that also into l-o master for some more testing before
the merge window.
Regards,
Tony
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-18 0:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-27 14:13 [PATCH 0/8] gpio/omap: remaining cleanups and fix Tarun Kanti DebBarma
2012-04-27 14:13 ` Tarun Kanti DebBarma
2012-04-27 14:13 ` [PATCH 1/8] gpio/omap: remove virtual_irq_start variable Tarun Kanti DebBarma
2012-04-27 14:13 ` Tarun Kanti DebBarma
2012-05-03 11:13 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2012-05-03 11:13 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2012-04-27 14:13 ` [PATCH 2/8] gpio/omap: remove saved_fallingdetect, saved_risingdetect Tarun Kanti DebBarma
2012-04-27 14:13 ` Tarun Kanti DebBarma
2012-04-27 14:13 ` [PATCH 3/8] gpio/omap: remove suspend_wakeup field from struct gpio_bank Tarun Kanti DebBarma
2012-04-27 14:13 ` Tarun Kanti DebBarma
2012-04-27 14:13 ` [PATCH 4/8] gpio/omap: remove saved_wakeup " Tarun Kanti DebBarma
2012-04-27 14:13 ` Tarun Kanti DebBarma
2012-04-27 14:13 ` [PATCH 5/8] gpio/omap: remove retrigger variable in gpio_irq_handler Tarun Kanti DebBarma
2012-04-27 14:13 ` Tarun Kanti DebBarma
2012-04-27 14:13 ` [PATCH 6/8] gpio/omap: remove suspend/resume callbacks Tarun Kanti DebBarma
2012-04-27 14:13 ` Tarun Kanti DebBarma
2012-04-27 14:13 ` [PATCH 7/8] gpio/omap: remove cpu_is_omapxxxx() checks from *_runtime_resume() Tarun Kanti DebBarma
2012-04-27 14:13 ` Tarun Kanti DebBarma
2012-05-03 11:15 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2012-05-03 11:15 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2012-04-27 14:13 ` [PATCH 8/8] gpio/omap: fix missing check in *_runtime_suspend() Tarun Kanti DebBarma
2012-04-27 14:13 ` Tarun Kanti DebBarma
2012-05-03 11:16 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2012-05-03 11:16 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2012-05-17 22:21 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-05-17 22:21 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-05-17 23:12 ` Tony Lindgren
2012-05-17 23:12 ` Tony Lindgren
2012-05-17 23:56 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-05-17 23:56 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-05-18 0:10 ` Tony Lindgren [this message]
2012-05-18 0:10 ` Tony Lindgren
2012-05-18 4:48 ` DebBarma, Tarun Kanti
2012-05-18 4:48 ` DebBarma, Tarun Kanti
2012-05-18 6:22 ` Shilimkar, Santosh
2012-05-18 6:22 ` Shilimkar, Santosh
2012-05-17 23:27 ` Grant Likely
2012-05-17 23:27 ` Grant Likely
2012-05-18 14:03 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-05-18 14:03 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-05-18 5:12 ` DebBarma, Tarun Kanti
2012-05-18 5:12 ` DebBarma, Tarun Kanti
2012-05-18 8:46 ` DebBarma, Tarun Kanti
2012-05-18 8:46 ` DebBarma, Tarun Kanti
2012-04-27 19:07 ` [PATCH 0/8] gpio/omap: remaining cleanups and fix Grant Likely
2012-04-27 19:07 ` Grant Likely
2012-04-27 21:57 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-04-27 21:57 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-04-27 22:05 ` Grant Likely
2012-04-27 22:05 ` Grant Likely
2012-05-03 11:17 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2012-05-03 11:17 ` Santosh Shilimkar
2012-05-10 6:38 ` Raja, Govindraj
2012-05-10 6:38 ` Raja, Govindraj
2012-05-10 22:13 ` Kevin Hilman
2012-05-10 22:13 ` Kevin Hilman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120518001004.GJ17852@atomide.com \
--to=tony@atomide.com \
--cc=b-cousson@ti.com \
--cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=khilman@ti.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=santosh.shilimkar@ti.com \
--cc=tarun.kanti@ti.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.