[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090828003010.GA19160@oksana.dev.rtsoft.ru>
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 04:30:10 +0400
From: Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...mvista.com>
To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org,
David Brownell <dbrownell@...rs.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: Set wakeup capability for I2C and SPI RTC drivers
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 03:19:25AM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
[...]
> > That is why platform code should device_init_wakeup() and
> > drivers should check device_can_wakeup(dev) ...
>
> They should (and do) check may_wakeup() (i.e. should_wakeup) before
> suspending, not can_wakeup().
>
> static int ds1374_suspend(struct i2c_client *client, pm_message_t state)
> {
> if (client->irq >= 0 && device_may_wakeup(&client->dev))
> enable_irq_wake(client->irq);
> return 0;
> }
>
> (quite funny, they issue enable_irq_wake(), assuming that otherwise
> IRQ line won't trigger CPU wakeup. But in reality, there are interrupt
> controllers that you can't control in that regard: any IRQ activity
> will always resume CPU. And so 'echo disable > /sys/.../wakeup' won't
> guarantee anything. Unreliable, nasty? Could be.)
BTW, of course we can fix this by masking interrupts before
suspending, but nobody actually do this (but should, I think).
And if RTC's IRQ is wired to power switch you're in trouble
without any way to fix this.
--
Anton Vorontsov
email: cbouatmailru@...il.com
irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2
--
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