Re: [PATCH 16/17] pinctrl: single: remove misuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag

[Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>]

On 21/09/15 19:53, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> 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
>> irq_set_irq_wake instead.
>>
>> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
>> Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 7 ++++---
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
>> index ef04b962c3d5..a5d0f0e52de1 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c
>> @@ -1615,12 +1615,14 @@ static void pcs_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *d)
>>    */
>>   static int pcs_irq_set_wake(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int state)
>>   {
>> +	struct pcs_soc_data *pcs_soc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
>> +
>>   	if (state)
>>   		pcs_irq_unmask(d);
>>   	else
>>   		pcs_irq_mask(d);
>>
>> -	return 0;
>> +	return irq_set_irq_wake(pcs_soc->irq, state);
>
> That's going to create at least a lockdep splat due to nesting
> irq_desc->lock.
>

Ah right, I noted that I must fix it when you pointed out similar issue
on the other thread[1]. I forgot later, sorry will look into that.

Regards,
Sudeep

[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/9/8/617