On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 9:55 PM, Linus Walleij <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Octavian Purdila > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> As noticed during suspend/resume operations, the IRQ can be unmasked >> then disabled in suspend and eventually enabled in resume, but without >> being unmasked. >> >> The current implementation does not take into account interactions >> between mask/unmask and enable/disable interrupts, and thus in the >> above scenarios the IRQs remain unactive. >> >> To fix this we removed the enable/disable operations as they fallback >> to mask/unmask anyway. >> >> We also remove the pending bitmaks as it is already done in irq_data >> (i.e. IRQS_PENDING). >> >> Signed-off-by: Octavian Purdila <[email protected]> > > Patch applied for fixes.
Bah now that I see there are several versions of the patch set floating around and also MFD patches I don't quite understand how acute this is or how it's to be applied. - Are these regression fixes or nice to have for next kernel release? - Are the GPIO patches independent of the MFD patch? Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
