linux-kernel - Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] PM: suspend_device

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 5 May 2009 18:11:31 +0400
From:	Vitaly Wool <vitalywool@...il.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] PM: suspend_device_irqs(): don't disable 
	wakeup IRQs

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon,  4 May 2009 17:27:04 -0700 Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com> wrote:
>
>> Interrupts that are flagged as wakeup sources via set_irq_wake()
>> should not be disabled for suspend.
>>
>
> Why not?

Sounds like an interesting problem. If a wakeup depends on the
interrupt line, then no they definitely should not be disabled, as no
wakeup would happen otherwise. OTOH, this is not necessarily the case;
some SoCs configure wakeup sources as GPIOs (i.MXs do AFAIR) so it's
not clear if we should change generic source code in this case.

Vitaly
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/