[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150304200040.GA12126@leverpostej>
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 20:00:40 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH] genirq: describe IRQF_COND_SUSPEND
With certain restrictions it is possible for a wakeup device to share
and IRQ with an IRQF_NO_SUSPEND user, and the warnings introduced by
commit cab303be91dc47942bc25de33dc1140123540800 are spurious. The new
IRQF_COND_SUSPEND flag allows drivers to tell the core when these
restrictions are met, allowing spurious warnings to be silenced.
This patch documents how IRQF_COND_SUSPEND is expected to be used,
updating some of the text now made invalid by its addition.
Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
---
Documentation/power/suspend-and-interrupts.txt | 16 +++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
As promised previously, take IRQF_COND_SUSPEND into account in the
documentation.
Rafael, does this look OK to you?
Thanks,
Mark.
diff --git a/Documentation/power/suspend-and-interrupts.txt b/Documentation/power/suspend-and-interrupts.txt
index 50493c9..8afb29a 100644
--- a/Documentation/power/suspend-and-interrupts.txt
+++ b/Documentation/power/suspend-and-interrupts.txt
@@ -112,8 +112,9 @@ any special interrupt handling logic for it to work.
IRQF_NO_SUSPEND and enable_irq_wake()
-------------------------------------
-There are no valid reasons to use both enable_irq_wake() and the IRQF_NO_SUSPEND
-flag on the same IRQ.
+There are very few valid reasons to use both enable_irq_wake() and the
+IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag on the same IRQ, and it is never valid to use both for the
+same device.
First of all, if the IRQ is not shared, the rules for handling IRQF_NO_SUSPEND
interrupts (interrupt handlers are invoked after suspend_device_irqs()) are
@@ -122,4 +123,13 @@ handlers are not invoked after suspend_device_irqs()).
Second, both enable_irq_wake() and IRQF_NO_SUSPEND apply to entire IRQs and not
to individual interrupt handlers, so sharing an IRQ between a system wakeup
-interrupt source and an IRQF_NO_SUSPEND interrupt source does not make sense.
+interrupt source and an IRQF_NO_SUSPEND interrupt source does not generally
+make sense.
+
+In rare cases an IRQ can be shared between a wakeup device driver and an
+IRQF_NO_SUSPEND user. In order for this to be safe, the wakeup device driver
+must be able to discern spurious IRQs from genuine wakeup events (signalling
+the latter to the core with pm_system_wakeup()), must use enable_irq_wake() to
+ensure that the IRQ will function as a wakeup source, and must request the IRQ
+with IRQF_COND_SUSPEND to tell the core that it meets these requirements. If
+these requirements are not met, it is not valid to use IRQF_COND_SUSPEND.
--
1.9.1
--
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