-----Original Message-----
From: Russell King - ARM Linux [mailto:linux at arm.linux.org.uk]
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 5:59 PM
To: Santosh Shilimkar
Cc: viresh kumar; Rajeev KUMAR; Armando VISCONTI; Vipin KUMAR; Shiraz
HASHIM; Amit VIRDI; Vipul Kumar SAMAR; Deepak SIKRI; linux-arm-
kernel at lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 39/63] GIC: Added dummy handlers for
PowerManagementSuspend Resume

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 05:50:37PM +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:

quoted

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: linux-arm-kernel-bounces at lists.infradead.org

[mailto:linux-arm-

quoted

quoted

kernel-bounces at lists.infradead.org] On Behalf Of Russell King - ARM

Linux

quoted

Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 5:20 PM
To: viresh kumar
Cc: Rajeev KUMAR; Armando VISCONTI; Vipin KUMAR; Shiraz HASHIM; Amit
VIRDI; Vipul Kumar SAMAR; Deepak SIKRI; linux-arm-
kernel at lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 39/63] GIC: Added dummy handlers for Power
ManagementSuspend Resume

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 05:02:17PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:

quoted

On 12/20/2010 04:40 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

quoted

And still this patch gets reposted a few more times despite my
objections:

http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20100920.150749.c97eda0d.en.h

quoted

quoted

tml

quoted

Russell,

Actually, when we discussed all this, we didn't came to any

conclusion,

quoted

quoted

and so i asked you: should we go ahead with this patch or drop it?

Yes, I didn't bother replying any further because it seemed that no

one

quoted

quoted

was listening to me.

I think over the four or five emails my position on the patch was

pretty

quoted

quoted

clear: I do _not_ like it one bit, and I still do not like it.

It is a hack, plain and simple.  You're adding code to misrepresent

what

quoted

quoted

the hardware can do.  You're fooling the system into thinking that

the

quoted

quoted

GIC can control wake-up sources, when in fact the GIC has zero

wakeup

quoted

quoted

capabilities what so ever.

As I pointed out in the message above, if you do this, then drivers

have

quoted

quoted

NO WAY to detect whether the interrupt controller they're connected

to

quoted

quoted

is wake-up capable or not.

http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20100920.134808.634d6ea1.en.h

quoted

quoted

tml

I still don't know what your driver code looks like, yet I've given

you

quoted

quoted

a suggestion to solve your problem in a subsequent reply (see the

URL

quoted

quoted

at the top of this message) which never really got a reply from you.

It seems to me that as soon as I asked for driver code, ST lost all
interest in discussing the issue any further, as there was no

further

quoted

quoted

technical discussion coming from _any_ ST people.

Just for information, we did found a serial driver BUG
is similar aspect. Below is the thread.
http://ns3.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg41240.html

So, the serial_core layer isn't properly tracking whether
enable_irq_wake()
succeeded, and is then calling disable_irq_wake().  That's a bug in
the serial_core layer which needs fixing.

Patch is already posted for this on serial list.

http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-serial/msg03156.html