[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150306131025.GH8700@leverpostej>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 13:10:26 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
"linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org" <linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org>,
Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
"rtc-linux@...glegroups.com" <rtc-linux@...glegroups.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
"linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
"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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] watchdog: at91sam9: request the irq with
IRQF_NO_SUSPEND
> >> > We seem to be conflating some related properties:
> >> >
> >> > [a] The IRQ will be left unmasked.
> >> > [b] The IRQ will be handled immediately when taken.
> >> > [c] The IRQ will wake the system from suspend.
[...]
> > Considering that the use-case of a watchdog is to alert us to something
> > going hideously wrong in the kernel, we want to handle the IRQ after
> > executing the smallest amount of kernel code possible. For that, they
> > need to have their handlers to be called "immediately" outside of the
> > arch_suspend_disable_irqs() ... arch_suspend_enable_irqs() window, and
> > need to be enabled during suspend to attempt to catch bad wakeup device
> > configuration.
> >
> > I think it's possible (assuming the caveats on [b] above) to provide
> > [a,b,c] for this case.
>
> OK
>
> But in this case the request_irq() passing IRQF_NO_SUSPEND *and* requiring
> enable_irq_wake() in addition to that needs a big fat comment explaining the
> whole thing or we'll forget about the gory details at one point and no one will
> know what's going on in there.
Agreed.
I'd expect an IRQF_SW_WATCHDOG or something to that effect should also
be required for that case.
Thanks,
Mark.
--
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