Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:19:32 +0200 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: revert yenta free_irq on suspend |
| |
Hi!
> > > In general, I think that calling free_irq is the right behavior. > > > Although irqs changing after suspend is rare, there are also some > > > more serious issues. This has been discussed in the past, and a > > > summary is as follows: > > > > irqs actually isn't changed after suspend currently, it's a considering > > for future usage like hotplug. > > Calling free_irq actually isn't a complete ACPI issue, but ACPI requires > > it to solve nasty 'sleep in atomic' warning. > > Is that the only problem? If so, then surely we can make free_irq() run > happily with interrupts disabled: unlink the IRQ handler synchronously, > defer the /proc teardown or something like that.
No, the problem is that
a) restoring interrupt links needs interrupts enabled [or rewriting half of ACPI interpretter]
b) to solve a) [and to solve other stuff, too], we need free_irq/request_irq all over the tree.
> > You will find such break > > with swsusp without ACPI. Could we revert the ACPI change in Linus's > > tree but keep it in -mm tree? So we get a chance to fix drivers. > > That depends on the amount of brokenness involved: if it's significant then > I'll get a ton of bug reports concerning something which we already know is > broken and we'll drive away our long-suffering testers.
The amount of brokenness is not that bad, and it fixes some machines, too. Pavel -- if you have sharp zaurus hardware you don't need... you know my address - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |