[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1192853161.17235.34.camel@pasglop>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:06:01 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
akpm <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev list <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] synchronize_irq needs a barrier
> > - even when you ignore the interrupt (because the driver doesn't care,
> > it's suspending), you need to make sure the hardware gets shut up by
> > reading (or writing) the proper interrupt status register.
> I agree, but while device is powered off, its registers can't be accessed
> Thus, if I ack the IRQ every time the handler is called, I will access the
> powered off device (this is probably won't hurt a lot, but a bit incorrectly)
It will actually crash your machine on some platforms. So no, best is to
-not- ack. The masking is enough, the IRQ will go down eventually.
Ben.
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists