[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1192853350.17235.37.camel@pasglop>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:09:10 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Maxim Levitsky <maximlevitsky@...il.com>,
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.
> >
> > Otherwise, with a level interrupt, the interrupt will continue to be
> > held active ("screaming") and the CPU will get interrupted over and
> > over again, until the irq subsystem will just turn the irq off
> > entirely.
>
> His suspend routine wrote to the IRQ mask (or equivalent) register in
> his code example, thus the HW should shut up eventually, thus that isn't
> strictly necessary, the IRQ in that case is just a "short
> interrupt" (noticed by the PIC and delivered but possibly not asserted
> anymore at this stage or about to go down).
In fact, he -must not- ack it. Because is the HW is really down (in D3),
got knows what accessing the ACK register will do. I can give you
ideas... from nothing on most x86 desktops to machine checks on most
powerpc machines, though I could imagine some cards bad enough to lock
your bus up if you try to access a register while they are in D3 (I've
seen some of those critters and it seems not all bridges timeout on
cards that just keep sending retries).
Cheers,
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