[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <MW2PR02MB37706E6E182F19F278B35707C9D80@MW2PR02MB3770.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2020 18:26:42 +0000
From: Harini Katakam <harinik@...inx.com>
To: "nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com" <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
"pthombar@...ence.com" <pthombar@...ence.com>,
"sergio.prado@...abworks.com" <sergio.prado@...abworks.com>,
"antoine.tenart@...tlin.com" <antoine.tenart@...tlin.com>,
"f.fainelli@...il.com" <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
"linux@...linux.org.uk" <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
"andrew@...n.ch" <andrew@...n.ch>,
Michal Simek <michals@...inx.com>,
Rafal Ozieblo <rafalo@...ence.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/5] net: macb: fix wakeup test in runtime suspend/resume
routines
Hi Nicolas,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com [mailto:nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2020 11:14 PM
> To: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org; netdev@...r.kernel.org; Claudiu
> Beznea <claudiu.beznea@...rochip.com>; Harini Katakam
> <harinik@...inx.com>
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; David S. Miller <davem@...emloft.net>;
> Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>; pthombar@...ence.com;
> sergio.prado@...abworks.com; antoine.tenart@...tlin.com;
> f.fainelli@...il.com; linux@...linux.org.uk; andrew@...n.ch; Michal Simek
> <michals@...inx.com>; Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>; Rafal
> Ozieblo <rafalo@...ence.com>
> Subject: [PATCH 1/5] net: macb: fix wakeup test in runtime suspend/resume
> routines
>
> From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>
>
> Use the proper struct device pointer to check if the wakeup flag and wakeup
> source are positioned.
> Use the one passed by function call which is equivalent to &bp->dev-
> >dev.parent.
>
> It's preventing the trigger of a spurious interrupt in case the Wake-on-Lan
> feature is used.
Sorry I have some mail issues; meant to reply earlier.
Tested patches 1, 2, 3 in this set and they work for me.
I'll try patch 4; it looks similar to what I'm using locally but I'll add whatever
tie-off queue handling is required on top of your series, thanks.
Regards,
Harini
Powered by blists - more mailing lists