From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tglx@linutronix.de (Thomas Gleixner) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 14:17:23 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [patch 1/5] pinctrl: samsung: Remove bogus irq_[un]mask from resource management In-Reply-To: References: <20170629213334.375848050@linutronix.de> <20170629214343.882576048@linutronix.de> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, 30 Jun 2017, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > The irq chip callbacks irq_request/release_resources() have absolutely no > > business with masking and unmasking the irq. > > > > The core code unmasks the interrupt after complete setup and masks it > > before invoking irq_release_resources(). > > > > The unmask is actually harmful as it happens before the interrupt is > > completely initialized in __setup_irq(). > > > > Remove it. > > > > Fixes: f6a8249f9e55 ("pinctrl: exynos: Lock GPIOs as interrupts when used as EINTs") > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner > > Cc: Tomasz Figa > > Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski > > Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki > > Cc: Linus Walleij > > Cc: Kukjin Kim > > Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org > > Cc: linux-samsung-soc at vger.kernel.org > > Cc: linux-gpio at vger.kernel.org > > Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij > > Does this patch have a dependency on the rest of the series or should > I just apply it as-is? Has no dependecies at all.