[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 16:30:30 +0100
From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: Mark Einon <mark.einon@...il.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
<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 Feb 02 Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Stefan Richter wrote:
>
> > On Feb 01 Mark Einon wrote:
> > > On 1 February 2013 21:09, Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> On Jan 29 Alan Stern wrote:
> > > >>>>> 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?
> >
> > As far as I can tell, it happened to be done that way as a side effect of
> > how the probe() and resume() methods share code. It has remained like
> > this since the initial implementation:
> > http://git.kernel.org/linus/2aef469a35a2
>
> At one point, quite a few years ago, Linus complained about drivers the
> release IRQs during suspend only to reacquire them during resume. A
> little refactoring should be able to separate out resource
> acquisition/release (done only during probe and remove) from activation
> and shutdown (also done during resume and suspend).
>
> > Still, at this point I would like to learn whether .suspend() followed
> > by .remove() is a valid order of sequence which drivers must support
> > before I prepare myself to get comfortable with a refactoring of
> > firewire-ohci's .probe()/.resume()/suspend()/remove(). Obviously, so far
> > my assumption was that a successful .suspend() can only ever be followed
> > by .resume().
>
> It depends on the subsystem. Some subsystems do have suspend -> remove
> transitions and others don't. In general, it's a good idea for drivers
> to be prepared for removal while the system is asleep. Presumably any
> hot-unpluggable bus (which includes most of the important buses these
> days) would have to support it.
OK, thank you. In this case we are of course dealing with the pci
subsystem (and with PCI/ CardBus/ PCI Express/ ExpressCard attached
hardware). Maybe I should have addressed my question to linux-pci
instead of linux-pm; however, if this is the general expectation,
then I too prefer firewire-ohci to be able to handle it even if the pci
subsystem wouldn't require it presently (which now sounds unlikely).
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-===-= --=- ---=-
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
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