From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 11:49:48 +0000 Subject: [PATCH V3 39/63] GIC: Added dummy handlers for Power Management Suspend Resume In-Reply-To: <4D0F3EC1.5030207@st.com> References: <674f9b1ab90602072d7adcd856453380ed21872b.1292833229.git.viresh.kumar@st.com> <20101220111056.GB28157@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4D0F3EC1.5030207@st.com> Message-ID: <20101220114948.GC28157@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 05:02:17PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote: > On 12/20/2010 04:40 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > And still this patch gets reposted a few more times despite my > > objections: > > > > http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20100920.150749.c97eda0d.en.html > > Russell, > > Actually, when we discussed all this, we didn't came to any conclusion, > and so i asked you: should we go ahead with this patch or drop it? Yes, I didn't bother replying any further because it seemed that no one was listening to me. I think over the four or five emails my position on the patch was pretty clear: I do _not_ like it one bit, and I still do not like it. It is a hack, plain and simple. You're adding code to misrepresent what the hardware can do. You're fooling the system into thinking that the GIC can control wake-up sources, when in fact the GIC has zero wakeup capabilities what so ever. As I pointed out in the message above, if you do this, then drivers have NO WAY to detect whether the interrupt controller they're connected to is wake-up capable or not. http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20100920.134808.634d6ea1.en.html I still don't know what your driver code looks like, yet I've given you a suggestion to solve your problem in a subsequent reply (see the URL at the top of this message) which never really got a reply from you. It seems to me that as soon as I asked for driver code, ST lost all interest in discussing the issue any further, as there was no further technical discussion coming from _any_ ST people.