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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 05 May 2009 17:13:48 -0700 From: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com> To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> Cc: Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM: suspend_device_irqs(): don't disable wakeup IRQs "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl> writes: > On Wednesday 06 May 2009, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com> writes: >> >> > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Kevin Hilman >> > <khilman@...prootsystems.com> wrote: >> >> Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> writes: >> >> >> >>> 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? >> >>> >> >> >> >> If an interrupt is a wakeup source, and it is disabled at the chip >> >> level, it will no longer generate interrupts, and thus no longer wake >> >> up the system. >> >> >> >> I'd be interested in hearing why wakeup interrupts should be disabled >> >> during suspend. > > That depends on whether or not they are used for anything else than wake-up. > >> >> [...] >> >> >>> >> >>> If this fixes some bug then please provide a description of that bug? >> >> >> >> The bug is that on TI OMAP, interrupts that are used for wakeup events >> >> are disabled by this code causing the system to no longer wake up. >> > >> > What do you do if the interrupt triggers right after your driver has >> > returned from its late suspend hook? >> >> If it's a wakeup IRQ, I assume you want it to prevent suspend. >> >> But I don't see how that can happen in the current code. IIUC, by the >> time your late suspend hook is run, your device IRQ is already >> disabled, so it won't trigger an interrupt that will be caught by >> check_wakeup_irqs() anyways. > > My understanding of __disable_irq() was that it didn't actually disable the > IRQ at the hardware level, allowing the CPU to actually receive the interrupt > and acknowledge it, but preventing the device driver for receiving it. Hmm, that's not normally what I think of as disabled. ;) > Does it work differently on the affected systems? Yes. __disable_irq() calls the irq_chip's disable method which is platform specific. On OMAP, this masks the IRQ at the hardware level preventing the CPU from seeing the interrupt. Kevin -- 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