[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1385374413.11161.28.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:13:33 +0000
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
To: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>
CC: Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>,
"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 Wed, 2013-11-20 at 15:24 +0530, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> 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.
IME zero comments since August is not "under review", it is "has slipped
through the cracks" ;-)
I would suggest you resend it.
Ian.
--
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