On Tue, Sep 08 2020 at 12:05, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 2:54 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Right and that's where we want the new chip flag with the unmask if
>> armed.
>
> OK, so we're back in Maulik's court to spin, right? I think the last
> word before our tangent was at:
>
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 2:54 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> Doug,
>
> On Thu, Sep 03 2020 at 16:19, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 5:57 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>That pending interrupt will not prevent the machine from going into
> >>suspend and if it's an edge int
Doug,
On Thu, Sep 03 2020 at 16:19, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 5:57 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>That pending interrupt will not prevent the machine from going into
>>suspend and if it's an edge interrupt then an unmask in
>>suspend_device_irq() won't help. Edge inte
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 5:57 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 02 2020 at 13:26, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > Specifically I think it gets back to the idea that, from a device
> > driver's point of view, there isn't a separate concept of disabling an
> > IRQ (turn it off and stop tracking
On Wed, Sep 02 2020 at 13:26, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Specifically I think it gets back to the idea that, from a device
> driver's point of view, there isn't a separate concept of disabling an
> IRQ (turn it off and stop tracking it) and masking an IRQ (keep track
> of it but don't call my handler u
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 2:51 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 31 2020 at 08:12, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:15 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> There are two reasonable choices here:
> >>
> >> 1) Do the symmetric thing
> >>
> >> 2) Let the drivers call a new func
On Mon, Aug 31 2020 at 08:12, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:15 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> There are two reasonable choices here:
>>
>> 1) Do the symmetric thing
>>
>> 2) Let the drivers call a new function disable_wakeup_irq_for_suspend()
>>which marks the interrupt to be
Hi,
On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 3:15 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 26 2020 at 15:22, Maulik Shah wrote:
> > On 8/26/2020 3:08 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>> Where is the corresponding change to resume_irq()? Don't we need to
> >>> disable an irq if it was disabled on suspend and forcib
On Wed, Aug 26 2020 at 15:22, Maulik Shah wrote:
> On 8/26/2020 3:08 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> Where is the corresponding change to resume_irq()? Don't we need to
>>> disable an irq if it was disabled on suspend and forcibly enabled here?
>>>
> I should have added comment explaining why i did
Hi,
On 8/26/2020 3:08 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Tue, Aug 25 2020 at 03:12, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Maulik Shah (2020-08-22 09:16:58)
diff --git a/kernel/irq/pm.c b/kernel/irq/pm.c
index c6c7e18..2cc800b 100644
--- a/kernel/irq/pm.c
+++ b/kernel/irq/pm.c
@@ -69,12 +69,17 @@ void irq_pm_
On Tue, Aug 25 2020 at 03:12, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Maulik Shah (2020-08-22 09:16:58)
>> diff --git a/kernel/irq/pm.c b/kernel/irq/pm.c
>> index c6c7e18..2cc800b 100644
>> --- a/kernel/irq/pm.c
>> +++ b/kernel/irq/pm.c
>> @@ -69,12 +69,17 @@ void irq_pm_remove_action(struct irq_desc *desc,
Quoting Maulik Shah (2020-08-22 09:16:58)
> diff --git a/kernel/irq/pm.c b/kernel/irq/pm.c
> index c6c7e18..2cc800b 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq/pm.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq/pm.c
> @@ -69,12 +69,17 @@ void irq_pm_remove_action(struct irq_desc *desc, struct
> irqaction *action)
>
> static bool suspend_d
12 matches
Mail list logo
