[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1209101215300.2724@ionos>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 12:28:35 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
"Shilimkar, Santosh" <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>
Subject: Re: Seeking clarity on IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012, NeilBrown wrote:
>
> The IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND flag seems to be hard to use correctly, so either
> I'm understanding it wrongly, or it could be made easier to use.
> If the first case, I'm hoping that some improvement to documentation might
> result. If the second, then maybe we can fix the code.
...
> Is anyone able to give a definitive answer on this? Should
> IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND be removed?
The whole point of IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND is to deal with hardware
designed by geniuses.
Most SoCs have a way to mark the interrupts which serve as a wake up
source as such. All other interrupts are magically "masked" on entry
to suspend.
Now there is hardware which is missing such a control, so we need to
mask the non wakeup interrupts right before going into suspend.
That's what IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND does. Not more, not less. See
commit d209a699a0b for more ugly details.
You might be looking for a different functionality. Can you explain
what you need?
Thanks,
tglx
--
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