[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53A8A917.8090706@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 00:24:23 +0200
From: Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>
To: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
CC: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>,
naveen krishna <ch.naveen@...sung.com>,
Jingoo Han <jg1.han@...sung.com>,
Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>, Simon Glass <sjg@...gle.com>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Masanari Iida <standby24x7@...il.com>,
Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@...aro.org>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: exynos5: Properly use the "noirq" variants of suspend/resume
On 24.06.2014 00:19, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> writes:
>
> [...]
>
>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not sure noirq is going to work correctly, at least not with current
>>> callbacks. I can see a call to clk_prepare_enable() there which needs to
>>> acquire a mutex.
>>
>> Nice catch, thanks! :)
>>
>> OK, looking at that now. Interestingly this doesn't seem to cause us
>> problems in our ChromeOS 3.8 tree. I just tried enabling:
>> CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y
>>
>> ...and confirmed that I got it on right:
>>
>> # zgrep -i atomic /proc/config.gz
>> CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y
>>
>> I can suspend/resume with no problems. My bet is that it works fine because:
>>
>> * resume_noirq is not considered "atomic" in the sense enforced by
>> CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP (at least not in 3.8--I haven't tried on
>> ToT)
>
> The reason is because "noirq" in the suspend/resume path actually means
> no *device* IRQs for that specific device.
>
> It's often assumed that the "noirq" callbacks are called with *all*
> interrupts disabled, but that's not the case. Only the IRQs for that
> specific device are disabled when its noirq callbacks run.
Thanks for clarifying this. This means that we should be fine with the
noirq variant then.
Best regards,
Tomasz
--
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