[PATCH V3 39/63] GIC: Added dummy handlers for Power ManagementSuspend Resume

[Santosh Shilimkar]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-arm-kernel-bounces at lists.infradead.org [mailto:linux-arm-
> kernel-bounces at lists.infradead.org] On Behalf Of Russell King - ARM
Linux
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2010 5:20 PM
> To: viresh kumar
> Cc: Rajeev KUMAR; Armando VISCONTI; Vipin KUMAR; Shiraz HASHIM; Amit
> VIRDI; Vipul Kumar SAMAR; Deepak SIKRI; linux-arm-
> kernel at lists.infradead.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 39/63] GIC: Added dummy handlers for Power
> ManagementSuspend Resume
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 05:02:17PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
> > On 12/20/2010 04:40 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > And still this patch gets reposted a few more times despite my
> > > objections:
> > >
> > >
>
http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20100920.150749.c97eda0d.en.h
> tml
> >
> > Russell,
> >
> > Actually, when we discussed all this, we didn't came to any
conclusion,
> > and so i asked you: should we go ahead with this patch or drop it?
>
> Yes, I didn't bother replying any further because it seemed that no one
> was listening to me.
>
> I think over the four or five emails my position on the patch was pretty
> clear: I do _not_ like it one bit, and I still do not like it.
>
> It is a hack, plain and simple.  You're adding code to misrepresent what
> the hardware can do.  You're fooling the system into thinking that the
> GIC can control wake-up sources, when in fact the GIC has zero wakeup
> capabilities what so ever.
>
> As I pointed out in the message above, if you do this, then drivers have
> NO WAY to detect whether the interrupt controller they're connected to
> is wake-up capable or not.
>
>
http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20100920.134808.634d6ea1.en.h
> tml
>
> I still don't know what your driver code looks like, yet I've given you
> a suggestion to solve your problem in a subsequent reply (see the URL
> at the top of this message) which never really got a reply from you.
>
> It seems to me that as soon as I asked for driver code, ST lost all
> interest in discussing the issue any further, as there was no further
> technical discussion coming from _any_ ST people.
>
Just for information, we did found a serial driver BUG
is similar aspect. Below is the thread.
http://ns3.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg41240.html

Regards,
Santosh