[PATCH v2 4/5] rtc: tps6586x: Fix initial enable_irq/disable_irq balance

[Jon Hunter]

On 29/10/2025 10:39, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 29/10/2025 09:20:17+0000, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Hi Esben,
>>
>> On 16/05/2025 08:23, Esben Haabendal wrote:
>>> Interrupts are automatically enabled when requested, so we need to
>>> initialize irq_en accordingly to avoid causing an unbalanced enable
>>> warning.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Esben Haabendal <esben at geanix.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/rtc/rtc-tps6586x.c | 1 +
>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-tps6586x.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-tps6586x.c
>>> index 54c8429b16bfcc692b1f4d5404f0c42f720e93b4..76ecf7b798f0de22aa89a552a263b473ab3065ef 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/rtc/rtc-tps6586x.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/rtc/rtc-tps6586x.c
>>> @@ -258,6 +258,7 @@ static int tps6586x_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>    	irq_set_status_flags(rtc->irq, IRQ_NOAUTOEN);
>>> +	rtc->irq_en = true;
>>>    	ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&pdev->dev, rtc->irq, NULL,
>>>    				tps6586x_rtc_irq,
>>>    				IRQF_ONESHOT,
>>>
>>
>> I have bisected a suspend regression on one of our Tegra20 boards (that uses
>> this driver) and bisect is pointing to this commit. Reverting this commit
>> fixes the problem.
>>
>> Looking at the above I see that the flag IRQ_NOAUTOEN is being set and so
>> now with your change we never enable the interrupt. Hence, the wake-ups are
>> now broken and suspend testing fails. So it would seem best to revert this.
>>
>> BTW, I looked at the change to the CPCAP driver and that driver actively
>> disables the IRQ after requesting it and so I am wondering if that will also
>> have alarm issues? I don't have a board with CPCAP to test.
>>
> 
> That's right, I guess you can send reverts.

You guessed right! I certainly can. I am happy to send a revert for this 
because I can clearly test and verify this. I am not sure if you and 
Esben want to review the rest of the series.

Jon

-- 
nvpublic