[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <159835036999.334488.14725849347753031927@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 03:12:49 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
To: Maulik Shah <mkshah@...eaurora.org>, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
evgreen@...omium.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org, maz@...nel.org,
mka@...omium.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, agross@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
jason@...edaemon.net, dianders@...omium.org, rnayak@...eaurora.org,
ilina@...eaurora.org, lsrao@...eaurora.org,
Maulik Shah <mkshah@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] genirq/PM: Introduce IRQCHIP_ENABLE_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND flag
Quoting Maulik Shah (2020-08-22 09:16:58)
> diff --git a/kernel/irq/pm.c b/kernel/irq/pm.c
> index c6c7e18..2cc800b 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq/pm.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq/pm.c
> @@ -69,12 +69,17 @@ void irq_pm_remove_action(struct irq_desc *desc, struct irqaction *action)
>
> static bool suspend_device_irq(struct irq_desc *desc)
> {
> + unsigned long chipflags = irq_desc_get_chip(desc)->flags;
> +
> if (!desc->action || irq_desc_is_chained(desc) ||
> desc->no_suspend_depth)
> return false;
>
> if (irqd_is_wakeup_set(&desc->irq_data)) {
> irqd_set(&desc->irq_data, IRQD_WAKEUP_ARMED);
> +
> + if (chipflags & IRQCHIP_ENABLE_WAKEUP_ON_SUSPEND)
> + irq_enable(desc);
Where is the corresponding change to resume_irq()? Don't we need to
disable an irq if it was disabled on suspend and forcibly enabled here?
> /*
> * We return true here to force the caller to issue
> * synchronize_irq(). We need to make sure that the
> @@ -93,7 +98,7 @@ static bool suspend_device_irq(struct irq_desc *desc)
> * chip level. The chip implementation indicates that with
> * IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND.
> */
> - if (irq_desc_get_chip(desc)->flags & IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND)
> + if (chipflags & IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND)
> mask_irq(desc);
> return true;
> }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists