[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200902262258.55835.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:58:54 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] PM: Rework handling of interrupts during suspend-resume
On Thursday 26 February 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> > On Thursday 26 February 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...k.pl> wrote:
> >> > BTW, appended is the current (3rd) version of the $subject patch with some
> >> > of your comments taken into account. In particular, I did the following:
> >> > - moved [suspend|resume]_device_irqs() to a separate file (pm.c)
> >> > - fixed interrupt.h so that their headers are at a better place
> >> > - made enable_irq() clear IRQ_SUSPENDED
> >> > - made device_power_down() and device_power_up() call
> >> > suspend_device_irqs() and resume_device_irqs(), respectively, which
> >> > simplified the callers quite a bit (it changed the Xen code ordering, though,
> >> > but I _think_ it still should work).
> >>
> >> Do you plan to fix edge triggered wakeup interrupts? It still looks
> >> like edge triggered wakeup interrupts that occur between
> >> suspend_device_irqs and local_irq_disable will not cause a wakeup.
> >
> > In the current version of the patch the interrupts that have IRQ_WAKEUP set
> > in status are not disabled. Is this not enough?
>
> That is enough for drivers that use wakelocks to abort suspend (if I
> fix the wakelock code to not use a platform device as its last abort
> point). It is not enough if you don't have wakelocks, since the
> interrupt can occur after suspend_late has been called and the driver
> has no way to abort suspend.
Well, how exactly the $subject patch does cause this problem to happen?
Rafael
--
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