[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZWF9F9JHKJ-SjUjp@google.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2023 20:50:31 -0800
From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
To: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Dhruva Gole <d-gole@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] Input: gpio-keys - Add system suspend support for
dedicated wakeirqs
Hi Tony,
On Fri, Nov 24, 2023 at 10:32:41AM +0200, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> + /*
> + * Wakeirq shares the handler with the main interrupt, it's only
> + * active during system suspend. See gpio_keys_button_enable_wakeup()
> + * and gpio_keys_button_disable_wakeup().
> + */
> + error = devm_request_any_context_irq(dev, bdata->wakeirq, isr,
> + irqflags, wakedesc, bdata);
> + if (error < 0) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Unable to claim wakeirq %d; error %d\n",
> + bdata->irq, error);
> + return error;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Disable wakeirq until suspend. IRQF_NO_AUTOEN won't work if
> + * IRQF_SHARED was set based on !button->can_disable.
> + */
> + disable_irq_nosync(bdata->wakeirq);
Why _nosync() here and below? Is there any harm in sing the normal
variant?
Thanks.
--
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists