From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754968AbbLDQPg (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2015 11:15:36 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:55222 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753584AbbLDQPe (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Dec 2015 11:15:34 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: single: remove misuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag To: Tony Lindgren 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> Cc: Sudeep Holla , Linus Walleij , Grygorii Strashko , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org From: Sudeep Holla Organization: ARM Message-ID: <5661BC21.2050802@arm.com> Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 16:15:29 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151204154031.GG23396@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 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 -- Regards, Sudeep