[PATCH 17/17] mfd : ab8500/db8500: fix the abuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND

[Sudeep Holla]

On 22/09/15 22:03, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Sep 2015, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> On 22/09/15 00:20, Lee Jones wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>>
>>>> The IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag is used to identify the interrupts that should
>>>> be left enabled so as to allow them to work as expected during the
>>>> suspend-resume cycle, but doesn't guarantee that it will wake the system
>>> >from a suspended state, enable_irq_wake is recommended to be used for
>>>> the wakeup.
>>>>
>>>> This patch removes the use of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flags replacing it with
>>>> enable_irq_wake instead.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij at linaro.org>
>>>> Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla at arm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   drivers/mfd/ab8500-core.c        | 11 +++++++++--
>>>>   drivers/mfd/ab8500-debugfs.c     |  2 +-
>>>>   drivers/mfd/ab8500-gpadc.c       | 15 +++++++++++----
>>>>   drivers/mfd/db8500-prcmu.c       | 24 +++++++++++++++++-------
>>>>   drivers/power/ab8500_btemp.c     |  6 ++++--
>>>>   drivers/power/ab8500_charger.c   |  6 ++++--
>>>>   drivers/power/ab8500_fg.c        |  9 ++++++---
>>>>   drivers/thermal/db8500_thermal.c |  5 ++---
>>>>   drivers/usb/phy/phy-ab8500-usb.c | 10 ++++++----
>>>>   9 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> Is there a reason for bundling the changes in all of these subsystems
>>> together into a single patch?
>>>
>>
>> No, I understand this needs to be split. Since I was not 100% confident
>> about this change, I wanted LinusW to review and provide feedback and
>> gets things working before I can split this changes. I must have added
>> RFC, but usually it gets ignored :)
>
> Best if Linus reviews the correct patch-set.  Please split and
> resubmit.
>
Sure, but would like to get some feedback before I proceed just to
ensure my understanding is correct.

Regards,
Sudeep