Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201123160139.1.I2702919afc253e2a451bebc3b701b462b2d22344@changeid>
 <CACRpkdamdXCqZa4=qb5MsJtQMw1v53z5HZVv5SHJv84dtVACqQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdamdXCqZa4=qb5MsJtQMw1v53z5HZVv5SHJv84dtVACqQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date:   Tue, 24 Nov 2020 08:55:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=W9+Wa=0d-Y+kxhqsRVM4TOofTC-C519cLkYOsLSBRZ4A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] irqchip: qcom-pdc: Fix phantom irq when changing
 between rising/falling
To:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
        Maulik Shah <mkshah@codeaurora.org>,
        Srinivas Ramana <sramana@codeaurora.org>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        MSM <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 12:28 AM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 1:02 AM Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> > We have a problem if we use gpio-keys and configure wakeups such that
> > we only want one edge to wake us up.  AKA:
> >   wakeup-event-action = <EV_ACT_DEASSERTED>;
> >   wakeup-source;
>
> I would need Marc's ACK to apply this with the other patches
> to the pinctrl tree, but I can't really see if maybe it is OK to
> apply it separately?

I'll make an explicit note after the cut in the patch, but to also
respond here: we can apply this patch on its own.  The only reason I
sent as one series is because they address similar issues, this patch
stands on its own.  Patch #3 needs #2 but patch #2/#3 don't need patch
#1.

> Also are these patches supposed to all go in as fixes or
> for v5.11?

Wherever it makes sense.

-Doug