[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANK3SE09VqvshdLrV4xp2W8BHZqLmuz-pV9jQVj7tbk1JBX+9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:45:48 +0000
From: Mark Einon <mark.einon@...il.com>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>,
linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] firewire: Fix ohci free_irq() warning
On 29 January 2013 17:01, Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2013, Stefan Richter wrote:
>
>> Added Cc: linux-pm.
>>
>> On Jan 29 Mark Einon wrote:
>> > On 28 January 2013 23:01, Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de> wrote:
>> > > On Jan 28 Mark Einon wrote:
>> > >> This patch fixes the kernel warning generated when putting an MSI MS-1727
>> > >> GT740 laptop into suspend mode. The call sequence in this case calls
>> > >> free_irq() twice, once in pci_remove() and once then in pci_suspend().
>> > >
>> > > You mean /first/ in pci_suspend() and /then/ in pci_remove() on the
>> > > already suspended devices, right?
>> >
>> > Yes, I did. The call sequence is suspend then resume. My bad.
>
> Why does the pci_suspend routine call free_irq() at all? As far as I
> know, it's not supposed to do that. Won't the device continue to use
> the same IRQ after it is resumed?
This sounds reasonable to me - I think we could probably get rid of
the request_irq() call from resume, and use
disable_irq()/enable_irq()?
I'll attempt a patch - but unfortunately I don't have a firewire device to test.
Cheers,
Mark
--
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