* Linus Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org> [151201 06:07]: > On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> wrote: > > > From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> > > > > The IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag is used to identify the interrupts that should > > be left enabled so as to allow them to work as expected during the > > suspend-resume cycle, but doesn't guarantee that it will wake the system > > from a suspended state, enable_irq_wake is recommended to be used for > > the wakeup. > > > > This patch removes the use of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flags replacing it with > > irq_set_irq_wake instead. > > > > Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.wall...@linaro.org> > > Cc: linux-g...@vger.kernel.org > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.ho...@arm.com> > > I need Tony's ACK on this as well.
At least on omaps, this controller is always powered and we never want to suspend it as it handles wake-up events for all the IO pins. And that usecase sounds exactly like what you're describing above. I don't quite follow what your suggested alternative for an interrupt controller is? At least we need to have the alternative patched in with this chage before just removing IRQF_NO_SUSPEND. The enable_irq_wake is naturally used for the consumer drivers of this interrupt controller and actually mostly done automatically now with the dev_pm_set_dedicated_wake_irq. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
