[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87r1s4hv9t.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 16:40:46 +0200
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Maulik Shah <mkshah@...eaurora.org>,
Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
LinusW <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
Evan Green <evgreen@...omium.org>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-msm <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list\:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
Lina Iyer <ilina@...eaurora.org>,
Srinivas Rao L <lsrao@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] genirq: Introduce irq_suspend_one() and irq_resume_one() callbacks
Maulik,
On Tue, Aug 18 2020 at 10:05, Maulik Shah wrote:
> On 8/14/2020 4:28 AM, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 3:09 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> + if (chip->flags & IRQCHIP_UNMASK_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND)
> + unmask_irq(desc);
>
> I tried this patch and it didnot work as is.
>
> Calling unmask_irq() only invoke's chip's .irq_unmask callback but the
> underlying irq_chip have .irq_enable also present.
>
> Replacing the call with irq_enable() internally takes care of either
> invoking chip's .irq_enable (if its present) else it invokes unmask_irq().
>
> +
> + if (chip->flags & IRQCHIP_UNMASK_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND)
> + irq_enable(desc);
>
> probably IRQCHIP_UNMASK_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND should also be renamed to
> IRQCHIP_ENABLE_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND.
Makes sense and also works when the interrupt is already enabled.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists