Re: [PATCH 2/2] pinctrl: single: remove misuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
Date: 2015-12-04 17:10:59
Also in:
linux-gpio, lkml
From: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
Date: 2015-12-04 17:10:59
Also in:
linux-gpio, lkml
* Sudeep Holla [off-list ref] [151204 08:16]:
Hi Tony, On 04/12/15 15:40, Tony Lindgren wrote:quoted
* Tony Lindgren [off-list ref] [151203 13:41]:quoted
* Sudeep Holla [off-list ref] [151203 11:00]:quoted
I have added irq_set_irq_wake(pcs_soc->irq, state) in pcs_irq_set_wake which ensures it's marked for wakeup.Hmm well see the error I pasted in this thread, maybe that provides more clues.The irq_set_irq_wake(pcs_soc->irq, state) in pcs_irq_set_wake does not look right to me as pcs_irq_set_wake toggles the irq_wake for each pin separately, not for the whole controller.After thinking more about it we need some way to tell IRQ core that pcs_soc->irq is wakeup capable. Is that going to happen automatically via dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq as you mentioned earlier ?quoted
I think all that can be left out with the snipped from Grygorii, and maybe also the lock_class_key changes.If we not calling irq_set_irq_wake(pcs_soc->irq) in pcs_irq_set_wake, do you see possibility of lockdep recursion in any other paths. Otherwise we don't need this if we remove irq_set_irq_wake(pcs_soc->irq) from pcs_irq_set_wake
I think Grygorii is right here and this is correct as it's a counter once the other issues are sorted out and we have figured out what all needs to be patched together. Regards, Tony