Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
        Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Maulik Shah <mkshah@codeaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] genirq: Clarify that irq wake state is orthogonal to enable/disable
In-Reply-To: <CAD=FV=VX1Kh0UhJBX2JcSjSo7KaSQggicnVFYV8M31ocx3PYpg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20200206191521.94559-1-swboyd@chromium.org> <20200206195752.GA8107@codeaurora.org> <CAD=FV=VX1Kh0UhJBX2JcSjSo7KaSQggicnVFYV8M31ocx3PYpg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 07 Feb 2020 21:33:40 +0100
Message-ID: <87lfpe87dn.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> writes:
>> Thomas also mentioned that hardware could work either way and probably
>> should not be assumed to work one way or the other.
>
> Right...
>
> ...and then (paraphrasing) Stephen pointed out that policy makes it
> really hard for clients of the API to work properly.
>
> ...and then (paraphrasing) Thomas said "Good point.  As long as you
> document that not all drivers _actually_ behave the way you describe,
> it's fine to add a comment saying that drivers _should_ behave the way
> you describe".
>
> Or, said another way: if a driver doesn't behave the way Stephen
> describes then it should be fixed unless there is some reason why
> there is no possible way to make it happen.

Yes, that's right.

Thanks,

        tglx