[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0903081014430.19207@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 10:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
pm list <linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC][PATCH][1/8] PM: Rework handling of interrupts
during suspend-resume (rev. 5)
On Sat, 7 Mar 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
>
> You didn't answer my question. Why bother to distinguish between
> "wake-up" interrupts and non-"wake-up" interrupts?
>
> In other words, why not simply abort the suspend if IRQ_PENDING is set
> for _any_ interrupt during sysdev_suspend()?
.. because some drivers might not actually shut down the hardware until
they get to "suspend_late"? If even then, for that matter - a driver may
simply not care, knowing that the hardware will be powered off, and will
be re-initialized at resume.
The thinking that you have to shut your hardware down at "->suspend()"
time is a _disease_. There are literally classes of hardware out there
where that would be an outright _bug_, like for a PCI bridge device. For
many devices, "suspend()" has to be the phase where you shut down the
_external_ stuff (eg for a disk controller, it's when you'd flush and stop
your disks), but the controller itself may well be alive until later.
Linus
--
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