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

[Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>]

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 :(

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()).

Actually, return result of  enable_irq_wake()  is checked only in ~30% of
cases in kernel now :)


-- 
regards,
-grygorii