From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/17] ARM: OMAP2+: remove misuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 16:20:15 +0100 Message-ID: <561D212F.3050603@arm.com> References: <1442850433-5903-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <1442850433-5903-13-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <20151012202047.GR23801@atomide.com> <20151012202847.GS23801@atomide.com> <561CE017.7030704@arm.com> <20151013145359.GV23801@atomide.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20151013145359.GV23801@atomide.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Tony Lindgren Cc: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Kevin Hilman , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sudeep Holla , Thomas Gleixner , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On 13/10/15 15:53, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Sudeep Holla [151013 03:46]: >> >> >> On 12/10/15 21:28, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>> * Tony Lindgren [151012 13:27]: >>>> * Sudeep Holla [150921 08:52]: >>>>> The IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag is used to identify the interrupts that should >>>>> be left enabled so as to allow them to work as expected during the >>>>> suspend-resume cycle, but doesn't guarantee that it will wake the system >>>> >from a suspended state, enable_irq_wake is recommended to be used for >>>>> the wakeup. >>>>> >>>>> This patch removes the use of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flags replacing it with >>>>> enable_irq_wake instead. >>>> >>>> Applying into omap-for-v4.4/cleanup thanks. >>> >>> Actually I don't think this does the right thing. The interrupts >>> in the $subject patch are in the always on powerdomain, and we really >> >> Agreed >> >>> want them to be excluded from the suspend. >>> >> >> OK but what's wrong with this patch. At-least the name suggest it's a >> wakeup interrupt. And using IRQF_NO_SUSPEND for the wakeup interrupt is >> simply wrong. > > Hmm so if we have a separate always on irq controller for the wake-up events > and we want to keep it always on and exclude it from any suspend related > things.. Why would we not use IRQF_NO_SUSPEND on it? > > Above you say "The IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag is used to identify the interrupts > that should be left enabled so as to allow them to work as expected during > the suspend-resume cycle..." and that's exactly what we want to do here :) > OK if these interrupts meet that criteria to use IRQF_NO_SUSPEND, then it should be fine, my earlier argument was based on the assumption that it's just another wakeup interrupt. > For the dedicated wake-up interrupts, we have separate registers to enable > and disable them. The $subject irq is the shared interrupt that allows > making use of the pin specific wake-up interrupts, and for those yes we > are using enable_irq_wake(). > If it's already take care, then fine. I am just hunting all the misuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag especially as wakeup source and fixing them >>> So not applying without further explanations. >>> >> >> But I don't understand the real need for IRQF_NO_SUSPEND over wakeup APIs ? > > Because in the $subject case we just want to always keep it on and > never suspend it. It's unrelated to the wakeup APIs at least for the > omap related SoCs. > OK, understood now. Thanks -- Regards, Sudeep