[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1509211848510.5606@nanos>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 18:51:31 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Manoil Claudiu <claudiu.manoil@...escale.com>
cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Kevin Hao <haokexin@...il.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 13/17] net: gianfar: remove misuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND
flag
On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Manoil Claudiu wrote:
> >The device is set as wakeup capable using proper wakeup API but the
> >driver misuses IRQF_NO_SUSPEND to set the interrupt as wakeup source
> >which is incorrect.
> >
> >This patch removes the use of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flags replacing it with
> >enable_irq_wake instead.
> >
>
> What would be the purpose of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag then? The flag is a
> friendlier API compared to calling enable_irq_wake(). For older kernels,
It's not an API, it's just a bandaid for lazy programmers.
> on PPC architectures, the flag did the job. When did this change? Since
> when using IRQF_NO_SUSPEND is a "misuse"?
It always was. Simply because IRQF_NO_SUSPEND has absolutely nothing
to do with wakeup interrupt sources. It's a flag which excludes the
interrupt from the suspend mechanism, but it does not flag it a wakeup
source.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists