On 29/10/2025 10:39, Alexandre Belloni wrote:

On 29/10/2025 09:20:17+0000, Jon Hunter wrote:

quoted

Hi Esben,

On 16/05/2025 08:23, Esben Haabendal wrote:

quoted

Interrupts are automatically enabled when requested, so we need to
initialize irq_en accordingly to avoid causing an unbalanced enable
warning.

Signed-off-by: Esben Haabendal <redacted>
---
   drivers/rtc/rtc-tps6586x.c | 1 +
   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-tps6586x.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-tps6586x.c
index 54c8429b16bfcc692b1f4d5404f0c42f720e93b4..76ecf7b798f0de22aa89a552a263b473ab3065ef 100644
--- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-tps6586x.c
+++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-tps6586x.c

@@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ static int tps6586x_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
   	irq_set_status_flags(rtc->irq, IRQ_NOAUTOEN);
+	rtc->irq_en = true;
   	ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc->irq, NULL,
   				tps6586x_rtc_irq,
   				IRQF_ONESHOT,

I have bisected a suspend regression on one of our Tegra20 boards (that uses
this driver) and bisect is pointing to this commit. Reverting this commit
fixes the problem.

Looking at the above I see that the flag IRQ_NOAUTOEN is being set and so
now with your change we never enable the interrupt. Hence, the wake-ups are
now broken and suspend testing fails. So it would seem best to revert this.

BTW, I looked at the change to the CPCAP driver and that driver actively
disables the IRQ after requesting it and so I am wondering if that will also
have alarm issues? I don't have a board with CPCAP to test.

That's right, I guess you can send reverts.

You guessed right! I certainly can. I am happy to send a revert for this 
because I can clearly test and verify this. I am not sure if you and 
Esben want to review the rest of the series.

Jon

-- 
nvpublic