From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932158AbbJMKmh (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2015 06:42:37 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:51814 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752568AbbJMKmf (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2015 06:42:35 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/17] ARM: OMAP2+: remove misuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag To: Tony Lindgren 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> Cc: Sudeep Holla , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Kevin Hilman , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org From: Sudeep Holla Message-ID: <561CE017.7030704@arm.com> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 11:42:31 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151012202847.GS23801@atomide.com> 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 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. > So not applying without further explanations. > But I don't understand the real need for IRQF_NO_SUSPEND over wakeup APIs ? -- Regards, Sudeep