[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200909251432.30738.rjw@sisk.pl>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 14:32:30 +0200
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>
To: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
Cc: linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...mvista.com>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [linux-pm] [PATCH] 3c59x: Get rid of "Trying to free already-free IRQ"
On Friday 25 September 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>
> > Though, there are few other issues with suspend/resume in this driver.
> > The intention of calling free_irq() in suspend() was to avoid any
> > possible spurious interrupts (see commit 5b039e681b8c5f30aac9cc04385
> > "3c59x PM fixes"). But,
> >
> > - On resume, the driver was requesting IRQ just after pci_set_master(),
> > but before vortex_up() (which actually resets 3c59x chips).
>
> Shouldn't it be possible to reset the chip (or at least prevent it from
> generating spurious IRQs) during the early-resume phase?
>
> > - Issuing free_irq() on a shared IRQ doesn't guarantee that a buggy
> > HW won't trigger spurious interrupts in another driver that
> > requested the same interrupt. So, if we want to protect from
> > unexpected interrupts, then on suspend we should issue disable_irq(),
> > not free_irq().
>
> What if some other device shares the IRQ and still relies on receiving
> interrupts when this code runs? Won't disable_irq() mess up the other
> device?
Ah, I overlooked the disable_irq()/enable_irq() part, which is not really
necessary anyway.
Anton, have you tried without that?
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists