Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:34:25 -0800 | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] PM: Rework handling of interrupts during suspend-resume | From | Arve Hjønnevåg <> |
| |
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: > On Thursday 26 February 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> wrote: >> > BTW, appended is the current (3rd) version of the $subject patch with some >> > of your comments taken into account. In particular, I did the following: >> > - moved [suspend|resume]_device_irqs() to a separate file (pm.c) >> > - fixed interrupt.h so that their headers are at a better place >> > - made enable_irq() clear IRQ_SUSPENDED >> > - made device_power_down() and device_power_up() call >> > suspend_device_irqs() and resume_device_irqs(), respectively, which >> > simplified the callers quite a bit (it changed the Xen code ordering, though, >> > but I _think_ it still should work). >> >> Do you plan to fix edge triggered wakeup interrupts? It still looks >> like edge triggered wakeup interrupts that occur between >> suspend_device_irqs and local_irq_disable will not cause a wakeup. > > In the current version of the patch the interrupts that have IRQ_WAKEUP set > in status are not disabled. Is this not enough?
That is enough for drivers that use wakelocks to abort suspend (if I fix the wakelock code to not use a platform device as its last abort point). It is not enough if you don't have wakelocks, since the interrupt can occur after suspend_late has been called and the driver has no way to abort suspend.
-- Arve Hjønnevåg -- 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/
| |