Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Aug 2018 09:49:59 -0600 | From | Lina Iyer <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RESEND v1 2/5] drivers: pinctrl: msm: enable PDC interrupt only during suspend |
| |
On Mon, Aug 20 2018 at 09:34 -0600, Marc Zyngier wrote: >On 20/08/18 16:26, Lina Iyer wrote: >> On Sat, Aug 18 2018 at 07:13 -0600, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>> Hi Lina, >>> >>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2018 20:10:23 +0100, >>> Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org> wrote: > >[...] > >>>> @@ -920,6 +928,8 @@ static int msm_gpio_pdc_pin_request(struct irq_data *d) >>>> } >>>> >>>> irq_set_handler_data(d->irq, irq_get_irq_data(irq)); >>>> + irq_set_handler_data(irq, d); >>>> + irq_set_status_flags(irq, IRQ_DISABLE_UNLAZY); >>> >>> Could you explain what this is trying to do? I'm trying to understand >>> this code, but this function isn't in 4.18... >>> >> Oh, I have been able to test only on 4.14 so far. The flag does seem to >> exist at least, I didn't get a compiler error. >> >> I read this in kernel/irq/chip.c - >> >> If the interrupt chip does not implement the irq_disable callback, >> a driver can disable the lazy approach for a particular irq line by >> calling 'irq_set_status_flags(irq, IRQ_DISABLE_UNLAZY)'. This can >> be used for devices which cannot disable the interrupt at the >> device level under certain circumstances and have to use >> disable_irq[_nosync] instead. >> >> And interpreted this as something that this would prevent 'relaxed' >> disable. I am enabling and disabling the IRQ in suspend path, that I >> thought this would help avoid issues caused by late disable. Am I >> mistaken? > >Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I'm talking about what you're trying to do >in this particular function (msm_gpio_pdc_pin_request), which doesn't >exist in 4.18. Short of having a bit of context, I can hardly review this. > Sorry, my patch generation during the resend is messed up. Seems like I didn't send that patch out during the resend.
-- Lina
| |