From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758044AbbIVPJz (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:09:55 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:58229 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756836AbbIVPJx (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Sep 2015 11:09:53 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/17] net: gianfar: remove misuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag To: Manoil Claudiu , Thomas Gleixner References: <1442850433-5903-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <1442850433-5903-14-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> Cc: Sudeep Holla , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "David S. Miller" , Kevin Hao , "netdev@vger.kernel.org" From: Sudeep Holla Message-ID: <56016F3C.2070704@arm.com> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 16:09:48 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 22/09/15 15:04, Manoil Claudiu wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Thomas Gleixner [mailto:tglx@linutronix.de] [...] >>> on PPC architectures, the flag did the job. When did this change? Since >>> when using IRQF_NO_SUSPEND is a "misuse"? >> >> It always was. Simply because IRQF_NO_SUSPEND has absolutely nothing >> to do with wakeup interrupt sources. It's a flag which excludes the >> interrupt from the suspend mechanism, but it does not flag it a wakeup >> source. >> > > I'm seeing also a "powerpc: mpic" patch in the series, unfortunately I can't Yes I think that was a redundant code, so I removed it. IIRC it was setting IRQF_NO_SUSPEND in irq_set_wake callback which again is incorrect. > afford to test it right now. However I ran a quick test with this gianfar patch > in isolation on a powerpc system, and seen some difference in the behavior > (with and w/o the patch). In both cases the system wakes up from standby > by magic packet. However, without the IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag 2 wake-up > interrupts are reported in /proc/interrupts for one magic packet; with the OK that's interesting, will have check if I have similar behavior on my setup too. > flag on there's just 1 interrupt. Maybe this is not relevant, maybe the > "powerpc: mpic" patch from this series changes this behavior. Hmm not sure, but better to test it together if possible. If required we can reorder for bisect-ability reasons. > But if this is the API, what can I say? We'll see in time. Btw, enable_irq_wake() > returns an error code, normally it should be handled by printing a warning > message at least, right? But since most drivers don't handle that, I'm assuming > it should be left unhandled to avoid overcomplicating things. Yes I left it so that I can add if the maintainer insist and not churn too much code adding warning. > FWIW > Acked-by: Claudiu Manoil > Thanks. Regards, Sudeep