Tony Lindgren <t...@atomide.com> writes: > * tero.kri...@nokia.com <tero.kri...@nokia.com> [100309 00:20]: >> > >> >Changes in wakeup state should not be directly correlated to interrupt >> >enabled GPIOs. Rather, this should only be done for GPIOs that are >> >explicitly wakeup enabled (via enable_irq_wake(), which in turn >> >calls gpio_wake_enable()). >> >> This logic somehow escapes me... I would guess drivers should not care >> during dynamic idle whether the device is in off/ret/ina and interrupts >> should just work. This is done to make this happen. Also, I understood that >> gpio wakeup logic is needed for the suspend wakeup, which is quite different >> from dynamic idle wakeup. >> >> However, if this is intended behavior for the kernel, then I will accept it. >> You are saying the code below should be moved into the gpio_wake_enable() / >> disable() calls? > > I agree. I'd assume during the idle modes we want everything to > automatically wake the system up. Otherwise we again have non-standard > Linux behaviour that's mysterious to track down. The enable_irq_wake > should only be needed for suspend states.
OK, then essentially all GPIO IRQs need to be configured in the equivalent of an enable_irq_wake'd state by default. That means IO pad wakeups *and* module-level wakeups. Upon suspend, the ability to wakeup should be removed for all except for those that have been explicitly enabled via enable_irq_wake(). Kevin -- 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
