From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: p-combes@ti.com (Patrick Combes)
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:23:50 +0100
Subject: [RFC][PATCH] gpiolib: add irq_wake (power-management) sysfs file
In-Reply-To: <20111116143731.GG29986@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
References: <1321004406-15663-1-git-send-email-p-combes@ti.com>
 <20111115131636.GA31028@sirena.org.uk>
 <20111116143011.GA5847@una0919255>
 <20111116143731.GG29986@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Message-ID: <20111116172347.GC5847@una0919255>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 02:37:31PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 03:30:13PM +0100, Patrick Combes wrote:
> 
> > > ...this doesn't do anything to stop userspace doing multiple enables and
> > > disables.
> 
> > Do you mean there is a need to prevent that?
> > Basically the code above accepts both "1" or "enable" strings to enable the
> > property. I could limit that to "enable" / "disable" if it is confusing.
> 
> That's not the problem.  The problem is that if you disable it might not
> actually disable the wake if it's previously been enabled multiple times.

You're right; I however wonder if this API should work as 'enable_irq_wake' or
if it should filter multiple enables/disables. I'd have supposed it's a choice
of implementation but based on your comment I understand filtering is the
expected way. I'll modify the function accordingly. Thanks