[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091007211225.GB17805@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 23:12:26 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc: Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@...il.com>, rpurdie@...ys.net,
lenz@...wisc.edu, kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dirk@...er-online.de, arminlitzel@....de,
Cyril Hrubis <metan@....cz>, thommycheck@...il.com,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
dbaryshkov@...il.com, omegamoon@...il.com, utx@...guin.cz,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
Subject: Re: 32-rc1 aka 32-rc2: warning at manage.c:361 (set_irq_wake),
matrix-keypad related?
> > > OK, so it looks like your box refuses to set up one of the GPIOs as a
> > > wakeup source... Hmm, either your box is wrong ;) or matrix_keypad
> > > driver needs to maintain a separate list of wakeup GPIOs.
> > >
> >
> > This is due to the nature of PXA processor, where not every GPIO can
> > be configured as a wakeup source. Mmm.... we can either return a
> > pseudo value indicating setting wakeup on that GPIO is OK (which
> > doesn't sound like a good idea), or we can just ignore the failure of
> > enable_irq_wake() in matrix_keypad?
>
> We ignore the failure right now in the mainline but that causes stack
> traces on resume as we trying to disable not enabled wakeup GPIOs. That
> was original Pavel's complaint.
Yep...
I'd say that BUG() simply should not trigger if wakeup can not be
enabled/disabled for particular source...?
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists