From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ccross@android.com (Colin Cross) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2011 15:37:34 -0700 Subject: [patch 02/23] arm: tegra: Remove unused function which fiddles with irq_desc In-Reply-To: References: <20110325131617.258789658@linutronix.de> <20110325132047.552074703@linutronix.de> <4D8E4897.5030705@nvidia.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Sun, 27 Mar 2011, Varun Wadekar wrote: >> >> Thomas, then how do you think we should handle restoring of gpio states >> across suspend-resume cycles? > > That code is unused. Period. No caller, nothing nada. So what does it > handle? Tegra suspend support didn't make it into 2.6.39, but should get merged in 2.6.40, and will call tegra_gpio_suspend/resume. >> > - >> > - ? for (i = INT_GPIO_BASE; i < (INT_GPIO_BASE + TEGRA_NR_GPIOS); i++) { >> > - ? ? ? ? ? struct irq_desc *desc = irq_to_desc(i); >> > - ? ? ? ? ? if (!desc || (desc->status & IRQ_WAKEUP)) >> > - ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? continue; >> > - ? ? ? ? ? enable_irq(i); >> > - ? } > > And this part is totally unacceptable and should have never been > merged. Further it is in the way of cleanups to the core code and as > there is no user I'm not willing to even think about what it does and > why it is there. > > FYI, the core code deals with interrupt suspending/resuming > already. So if there is a problem with that which does not cover your > specific problem, then you better talk to me before hacking up such > private workarounds and expecting that I tolerate them in unused code. Yes, the existing code wrong, and unnecessary. It was copied from mach-tegra/irq.c, which I later fixed, but I missed this one. I'll take this patch for 2.6.39-rc1, which will prevent merge conflicts between your tree and the tegra tree in 2.6.40.