[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <10caddc8-7dc1-4579-9edb-4514efa540cd@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 May 2025 11:38:40 +0200
From: Emanuele Ghidoli <ghidoliemanuele@...il.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Francesco Dolcini <francesco@...cini.it>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Bartosz Golaszewski
<brgl@...ev.pl>, Emanuele Ghidoli <emanuele.ghidoli@...adex.com>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@...adex.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: pca953x: fix IRQ storm on system wake up
On 12/05/2025 11:23, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 11:17:48AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 May 2025 at 16:18, Francesco Dolcini <francesco@...cini.it> wrote:
>>> An irq can be disabled with disable_irq() and still wake the system as
>>> long as the irq has wake enabled, so the wake-up functionality is
>>> preserved.
>
> ...
>
>> While this does not cause the regression seen on Salvator-XS with
>> the earlier approach[1], I expect this will break using a GPIO as a
>> wake-up source?
>
> Good point! Have this code been checked for that kind of scenarios?
>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-gpio/CAMuHMdVnKX23yi7ir1LVxfXAMeeWMFzM+cdgSSTNjpn1OnC2xw@mail.gmail.com
>
Yes, I tested this specific scenario with its GPIOs as wake-up sources, and it
worked as expected. I already included the note in the commit message.
Kind regards,
Emanuele
Powered by blists - more mailing lists