Neil,
On Fri, 4 May 2012, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 14:54:54 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner
> <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> > Why not simply managing the pending bit for level irqs ?
> >
>
> Hi Thomas,
> thanks again for the patch. I finally made time to test it and it works as
> expected. I've included it below with a change-log entry and tested-by:
> in case that helps.
thanks for testing. The changelog is great. You know how to make the
live of lazy buggers easier :)
> for_each_irq_desc(irq, desc) {
> - if (irqd_is_wakeup_set(&desc->irq_data)) {
> + if (desc->depth == 1 &&
> + irqd_is_wakeup_set(&desc->irq_data)) {
> if (desc->istate & IRQS_PENDING)
> return -EBUSY;
> continue;
I split that part into a separate patch, as it's really a different
issue.
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
