[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <528C86C2.1070206@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 15:24:10 +0530
From: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
To: Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
CC: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: IRQF_RESUME_EARLY and errors in dpm_suspend_noirq
On Wednesday 20 November 2013 02:50 PM, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Commit 9bab0b7fbace (genirq: Add IRQF_RESUME_EARLY and resume such IRQs
> earlier) split the suspend/resume of the irqs into two parts.
>
> The early-irqs get resumed during syscore_resume, while the rest get
> resumed by the regular resume_device_irqs.
>
> I may be blind, but where get the early-irqs resumed in the error
> path of dpm_suspend_noirq?
>
> When a suspend_noirq callback returns an error, dpm_resume_noirq gets called,
> which only calls resume_device_irqs while the suspend_device_irqs call in
> dpm_suspend_noirq suspends all irqs. So it does not seem that the early-irqs
> get resumed at all in this case.
>
I also faced same issue in our suspend failure path and posted fix
sometime ago as
https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/13/373
It is still under review.
You can try this patch if it resolve the issue.
Thanks,
Laxman
--
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