Re: pinctrl-sunxi dovetail changes

[Philippe Gerum <rpm@xenomai.org>]

Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> writes:

> Hi Philippe,
>
> the LLM considers this pattern unusual:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
> index 31cd142ce0f79..fb73cdaa30ca4 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/sunxi/pinctrl-sunxi.c
> @@ -1280,7 +1280,7 @@ static struct irq_chip sunxi_pinctrl_edge_irq_chip = {
>         .irq_release_resources = sunxi_pinctrl_irq_release_resources,
>         .irq_set_type   = sunxi_pinctrl_irq_set_type,
>         .irq_set_wake   = sunxi_pinctrl_irq_set_wake,
> -       .flags          = IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND,
> +       .flags          = IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE | IRQCHIP_PIPELINE_SAFE,
>  };
>  
>  static struct irq_chip sunxi_pinctrl_level_irq_chip = {
>
> Since day #1 of the patch, we are dropping IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND and 
> setting IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE instead. Do we need the latter? And do we 
> have to drop the former?
>

This looks suspicious, indeed. I don't see the reasoning here.

-- 
Philippe.