Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] gpio: brcmstb: allow parent_irq to wake

On 1/29/26 06:23, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

On Tue, Jan 27, 2026 at 11:47 PM Florian Fainelli
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

The classic parent_wake_irq can only occur after the system has
been placed into a hardware managed power management state. This
prevents its use for waking from software managed suspend states
like s2idle.

By allowing the parent_irq to be enabled for wake enabled GPIO
during suspend, these GPIO can now be used to wake from these
states. The 'suspended' boolean is introduced to support wake
event accounting.

...

quoted

         if (of_property_read_bool(np, "wakeup-source")) {
+               /*
+                * Set wakeup capability so we can process boot-time
+                * "wakeups" (e.g., from S5 cold boot)

While at it, add a period at the end.

quoted

+                */
+               device_set_wakeup_capable(dev, true);
+               device_wakeup_enable(dev);

quoted

         }

...

quoted

+       /* disable interrupts */

Still the comment is useless.

quoted

+       if (priv->parent_irq > 0)
+               disable_irq(priv->parent_irq);

And looking more at this, I don't see why we even need the check. Does
the code WARNs or so when there is no parent_irq available?

*Yes, I saw this is the original code, perhaps can be addressed in a follow up.

...

quoted

+       /* disable interrupts while we save the masks */

quoted

+       if (priv->parent_irq > 0)

Ditto.

quoted

+               disable_irq(priv->parent_irq);

...

quoted

+       /* disable interrupts while we restore the masks */
+       if (priv->parent_wake_irq)

Ditto.

quoted

+               disable_irq(priv->parent_irq);

...

quoted

+       /* re-enable interrupts */
+       if (priv->parent_irq > 0)

Same here.

quoted

                 enable_irq(priv->parent_irq);

...

All we are diving into is the 2 questions:
- is 0 on the particular platform an IRQ number and there is no sparse
tree enabled?
- is maple tree implementation clever enough to not crash (or have
side effects) when we ask for a non-existing index?

Anyway, this can be done later on.

OK, I will remove the superfluous comments, add punctuation where 
necessary and respin (removing patch #1 since it was applied already).

Thank you!
-- 
Florian