From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (Santosh Shilimkar) Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 17:50:37 +0530 Subject: [PATCH V3 39/63] GIC: Added dummy handlers for Power ManagementSuspend Resume In-Reply-To: <20101220114948.GC28157@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <674f9b1ab90602072d7adcd856453380ed21872b.1292833229.git.viresh.kumar@st.com><20101220111056.GB28157@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk><4D0F3EC1.5030207@st.com> <20101220114948.GC28157@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <53375b410d360c4155c4c4e978be9d78@mail.gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-arm-kernel-bounces at lists.infradead.org [mailto:linux-arm- > kernel-bounces at lists.infradead.org] On Behalf Of Russell King - ARM Linux > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 5:20 PM > To: viresh kumar > Cc: Rajeev KUMAR; Armando VISCONTI; Vipin KUMAR; Shiraz HASHIM; Amit > VIRDI; Vipul Kumar SAMAR; Deepak SIKRI; linux-arm- > kernel at lists.infradead.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 39/63] GIC: Added dummy handlers for Power > ManagementSuspend Resume > > 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.h > tml > > > > 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.h > tml > > 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. > Just for information, we did found a serial driver BUG is similar aspect. Below is the thread. http://ns3.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg41240.html Regards, Santosh