From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A25F0C2BA83 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 20:33:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C4A021775 for ; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 20:33:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727117AbgBGUdq (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Feb 2020 15:33:46 -0500 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([193.142.43.55]:41555 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727005AbgBGUdq (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Feb 2020 15:33:46 -0500 Received: from p5b06da22.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([91.6.218.34] helo=nanos.tec.linutronix.de) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1j0AJp-0002AT-F8; Fri, 07 Feb 2020 21:33:41 +0100 Received: by nanos.tec.linutronix.de (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B9334100F58; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 20:33:40 +0000 (GMT) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Doug Anderson , Lina Iyer Cc: Stephen Boyd , LKML , Marc Zyngier , Maulik Shah Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] genirq: Clarify that irq wake state is orthogonal to enable/disable In-Reply-To: References: <20200206191521.94559-1-swboyd@chromium.org> <20200206195752.GA8107@codeaurora.org> Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2020 21:33:40 +0100 Message-ID: <87lfpe87dn.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Doug Anderson writes: >> Thomas also mentioned that hardware could work either way and probably >> should not be assumed to work one way or the other. > > Right... > > ...and then (paraphrasing) Stephen pointed out that policy makes it > really hard for clients of the API to work properly. > > ...and then (paraphrasing) Thomas said "Good point. As long as you > document that not all drivers _actually_ behave the way you describe, > it's fine to add a comment saying that drivers _should_ behave the way > you describe". > > Or, said another way: if a driver doesn't behave the way Stephen > describes then it should be fixed unless there is some reason why > there is no possible way to make it happen. Yes, that's right. Thanks, tglx