From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Grygorii Strashko Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] OMAP/pinmux: remove misuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 18:31:59 +0700 Message-ID: <56DEB82F.5050703@ti.com> References: <1454351299-27440-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <56C1A1FE.3080403@arm.com> <20160215152751.GT19432@atomide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:48707 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933307AbcCHLcm (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Mar 2016 06:32:42 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20160215152751.GT19432@atomide.com> Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org To: Tony Lindgren , Sudeep Holla , Tero Kristo , Dave Gerlach Cc: Linus Walleij , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Linux-OMAP , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" On 02/15/2016 10:27 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Sudeep Holla [160215 02:03]: >> Hi Linus, >> >> On 13/02/16 14:42, Linus Walleij wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>> >>>> pinctrl: single: Use a separate lockdep class >>>> pinctrl: single: remove misuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag >>>> ARM: OMAP2+: remove misuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag >>>> >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/mux.c | 4 ++-- >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm34xx.c | 9 ++++----- >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c | 1 + >>>> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 15 ++++++++++++--- >>> >>> Are these patches orthogonal so I can merge the pinctrl patch independently >>> of the OMAP patches if Tony ACKs this? >>> >> >> Thanks for the follow up. >> IIUC they are dependent and remember Tony/Grygorii wanted them to be >> merged together(at-least for bisectibility) > > AFAIK this series needs to be kept together to keep things > working. > >>> If not: should it be merged by me or through ARM SoC/Tony? >>> >> >> I think so. >> >>> Anyways waiting for maintainer feedback, but the above is good to know. >>> >> >> Grygorii was still not sure if this works and he couldn't give it a >> test. He was traveling and may need more time to get back on this. > > He said it does not work so clearly more work is needed. > Yeah. As I mentioned before patches 2/3 will not work. I've tried to test suspend with diff I posted [1], but I did it only on dra7 and am43 where suspend i more simple than on omap3. Also, I worry that with such approach some irq can be missed (especially edge ones), because PRCM irqs will be re-enabled at very late resume stage (right before thaw). Second option, I see, is to rework PRCM to be threaded IRQ, but in this case all children IRQs will need to be threaded/nested threaded (including PCS, legacy OMAP mux, OMAP3 _prcm_int_handle_wakeup/_prcm_int_handle_io). Are there any objection to convert PCS to threaded IRQ, for example? ;) [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/578915/ -- regards, -grygorii From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: grygorii.strashko@ti.com (Grygorii Strashko) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 18:31:59 +0700 Subject: [PATCH 0/3] OMAP/pinmux: remove misuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag In-Reply-To: <20160215152751.GT19432@atomide.com> References: <1454351299-27440-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <56C1A1FE.3080403@arm.com> <20160215152751.GT19432@atomide.com> Message-ID: <56DEB82F.5050703@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 02/15/2016 10:27 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Sudeep Holla [160215 02:03]: >> Hi Linus, >> >> On 13/02/16 14:42, Linus Walleij wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>> >>>> pinctrl: single: Use a separate lockdep class >>>> pinctrl: single: remove misuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag >>>> ARM: OMAP2+: remove misuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag >>>> >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/mux.c | 4 ++-- >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/pm34xx.c | 9 ++++----- >>>> arch/arm/mach-omap2/prm_common.c | 1 + >>>> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 15 ++++++++++++--- >>> >>> Are these patches orthogonal so I can merge the pinctrl patch independently >>> of the OMAP patches if Tony ACKs this? >>> >> >> Thanks for the follow up. >> IIUC they are dependent and remember Tony/Grygorii wanted them to be >> merged together(at-least for bisectibility) > > AFAIK this series needs to be kept together to keep things > working. > >>> If not: should it be merged by me or through ARM SoC/Tony? >>> >> >> I think so. >> >>> Anyways waiting for maintainer feedback, but the above is good to know. >>> >> >> Grygorii was still not sure if this works and he couldn't give it a >> test. He was traveling and may need more time to get back on this. > > He said it does not work so clearly more work is needed. > Yeah. As I mentioned before patches 2/3 will not work. I've tried to test suspend with diff I posted [1], but I did it only on dra7 and am43 where suspend i more simple than on omap3. Also, I worry that with such approach some irq can be missed (especially edge ones), because PRCM irqs will be re-enabled at very late resume stage (right before thaw). Second option, I see, is to rework PRCM to be threaded IRQ, but in this case all children IRQs will need to be threaded/nested threaded (including PCS, legacy OMAP mux, OMAP3 _prcm_int_handle_wakeup/_prcm_int_handle_io). Are there any objection to convert PCS to threaded IRQ, for example? ;) [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/578915/ -- regards, -grygorii