Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758065Ab3JKMy1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Oct 2013 08:54:27 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f175.google.com ([209.85.223.175]:51117 "EHLO mail-ie0-f175.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753445Ab3JKMyZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Oct 2013 08:54:25 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5257E3C6.3050507@gmail.com> References: <1380635719-31171-1-git-send-email-zonque@gmail.com> <5257E3C6.3050507@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 14:54:24 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: misc: add gpio wakeup driver From: Linus Walleij To: Daniel Mack Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Greg KH , Thomas Gleixner , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Mark Brown , Stephen Warren Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 908 Lines: 23 On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Daniel Mack wrote: >> Since what the driver will then eventually provide is to >> flag an IRQ line as wakeup, I wonder if this should not just >> simply go into the interrupt core, or atleast of/irq.c. > > But for that, the IRQ line must be requested exclusively and handled as > well, no? If not, how would you handle cases where an interrupt is > marked as wakeup source by the core, but used by another driver which > calls disable_irq_wake() on it for whatever reason? Does this driver handle that? It rather looks like it hogs both the GPIO and IRQ from anyone else who want it... Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/