Re: [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: single: remove misuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag

[Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>]

* Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> [151204 08:16]:
> Hi Tony,
> 
> On 04/12/15 15:40, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> >* Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> [151203 13:41]:
> >>* Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> [151203 11:00]:
> >>>
> >>>I have added irq_set_irq_wake(pcs_soc->irq, state) in pcs_irq_set_wake
> >>>which ensures it's marked for wakeup.
> >>
> >>Hmm well see the error I pasted in this thread, maybe that provides
> >>more clues.
> >
> >The irq_set_irq_wake(pcs_soc->irq, state) in pcs_irq_set_wake does not
> >look right to me as pcs_irq_set_wake toggles the irq_wake for each pin
> >separately, not for the whole controller.
> >
> 
> After thinking more about it we need some way to tell IRQ core that
> pcs_soc->irq is wakeup capable. Is that going to happen automatically
> via dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq as you mentioned earlier ?
> 
> >I think all that can be left out with the snipped from Grygorii, and maybe
> >also the lock_class_key changes.
> >
> 
> If we not calling irq_set_irq_wake(pcs_soc->irq) in pcs_irq_set_wake, do
> you see possibility of lockdep recursion in any other paths.
> 
> Otherwise we don't need this if we remove irq_set_irq_wake(pcs_soc->irq)
> from pcs_irq_set_wake

I think Grygorii is right here and this is correct as it's a counter
once the other issues are sorted out and we have figured out what all
needs to be patched together.

Regards,

Tony