On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Wang Dongsheng wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 16:47 +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > mpic_irq_set_wake return -ENXIO for non FSL MPIC and sets IRQF_NO_SUSPEND > > > flag for FSL ones. enable_irq_wake already returns -ENXIO if irq_set_wak > > > is not implemented. Also there's no need to set the IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag > > > as it doesn't guarantee wakeup for that interrupt. > > > > > Non-freescale return -ENXIO, is there any issue? If non-freescale > platform does not support it, but IPs still use > enable/disable_irq_wake, we should return a error number.
You can just set IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE for FSL chips and not for the others. > @Scott: > If set this flag we cannot keep a irq as a wakeup source when system going to > SUSPEND or MEM. > > irq_set_wake() means we can set this irq as a wake source. > IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE is ignore irq_set_wake() feature. Nonsense. IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE merily tells the core not to bail on !chip->irq_set_wake(), but its still marking the interrupt as wakeup source and therefor not masking it on suspend. IRQF_NO_SUSPEND is the wrong tool. End of story. Thanks, tglx _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev