From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Gleixner Subject: RE: [PATCH 13/17] net: gianfar: remove misuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:51:31 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <1442850433-5903-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> <1442850433-5903-14-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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" To: Manoil Claudiu Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Manoil Claudiu wrote: > >The device is set as wakeup capable using proper wakeup API but the > >driver misuses IRQF_NO_SUSPEND to set the interrupt as wakeup source > >which is incorrect. > > > >This patch removes the use of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flags replacing it with > >enable_irq_wake instead. > > > > What would be the purpose of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag then? The flag is a > friendlier API compared to calling enable_irq_wake(). For older kernels, It's not an API, it's just a bandaid for lazy programmers. > 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. Thanks, tglx