[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] PM: Rework handling of interrupts during suspend-resume
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Linus Torvalds
<> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
>> That would not work without wakelocks support, since the interrupt
>> could occur after suspend_late which is the last chance for the driver
>> to abort sleep. (The patch also breaks my current wakelock
>> implementation since I use a suspend_late hook to abort sleep, but
>> this should be easy to fix)
> Since this must be some very deep arch-specific thing anyway, just make
> the dang thing be a "sysdev". At that point, its "suspend" function gets
> called way later (at which point CPU interrupts are off).

Wakelocks can use a sysdev, but I don't think a keyboard driver should
be a sysdev.

>> > Hm, if that solves the problem then it would be nice to have a
>> > new IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag for it, in addition to IRQF_TIMER:
>> I think the right fix is for any interrupt that has IRQ_WAKEUP set to
>> abort suspend if it is pending. I don't know if anyone relies on these
>> interrupts being dropped now though.
> We could add something like that, but quite frankly, I'd hate to unless
> there is some seriously common case. If it's just an oddball hacky special
> case, it's easier to just say "hey, you have that crazy system device, you
> handle it yourself".

I don't think this is a oddball case. It is very common to connect
keys or keypads to gpios. If these keys are wakeup keys, it is not OK
to loose interrupts during the suspend phase.

Arve Hjønnevåg
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-26 04:53    [from the cache]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital Ocean