From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932095AbbLDRK7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:10:59 -0500 Received: from muru.com ([72.249.23.125]:50874 "EHLO muru.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754554AbbLDRK4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2015 12:10:56 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 09:10:50 -0800 From: Tony Lindgren To: Sudeep Holla Cc: Linus Walleij , Grygorii Strashko , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: single: remove misuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag Message-ID: <20151204171050.GM23396@atomide.com> References: <1448644860-29323-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <1448644860-29323-2-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <20151203181337.GV23396@atomide.com> <566090FC.1020502@arm.com> <20151203214013.GB23396@atomide.com> <20151204154031.GG23396@atomide.com> <5661BC21.2050802@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5661BC21.2050802@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Sudeep Holla [151204 08:16]: > Hi Tony, > > On 04/12/15 15:40, Tony Lindgren wrote: > >* Tony Lindgren [151203 13:41]: > >>* Sudeep Holla [151203 11:00]: > >>> > >>>I have added irq_set_irq_wake(pcs_soc->irq, state) in pcs_irq_set_wake > >>>which ensures it's marked for wakeup. > >> > >>Hmm well see the error I pasted in this thread, maybe that provides > >>more clues. > > > >The irq_set_irq_wake(pcs_soc->irq, state) in pcs_irq_set_wake does not > >look right to me as pcs_irq_set_wake toggles the irq_wake for each pin > >separately, not for the whole controller. > > > > After thinking more about it we need some way to tell IRQ core that > pcs_soc->irq is wakeup capable. Is that going to happen automatically > via dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq as you mentioned earlier ? > > >I think all that can be left out with the snipped from Grygorii, and maybe > >also the lock_class_key changes. > > > > If we not calling irq_set_irq_wake(pcs_soc->irq) in pcs_irq_set_wake, do > you see possibility of lockdep recursion in any other paths. > > Otherwise we don't need this if we remove irq_set_irq_wake(pcs_soc->irq) > from pcs_irq_set_wake I think Grygorii is right here and this is correct as it's a counter once the other issues are sorted out and we have figured out what all needs to be patched together. Regards, Tony