Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:19:38 +0100 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] genirq: better describe IRQF_NO_SUSPEND semantics |
| |
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 01:26:05AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Friday, February 20, 2015 02:53:46 PM Mark Rutland wrote: > > The IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag is intended to be used for interrupts required > > to be enabled during the suspend-resume cycle. This mostly consists of > > IPIs and timer interrupts, potentially including chained irqchip > > interrupts if these are necessary to handle timers or IPIs. If an > > interrupt does not fall into one of the aforementioned categories, > > requesting it with IRQF_NO_SUSPEND is likely incorrect. > > > > Using IRQF_NO_SUSPEND does not guarantee that the interrupt can wake the > > system from a suspended state. For an interrupt to be able to trigger a > > wakeup, it may be necessary to program various components of the system. > > In these cases it is necessary to use {enable,disabled}_irq_wake. > > > > Unfortunately, several drivers assume that IRQF_NO_SUSPEND ensures that > > an IRQ can wake up the system, and the documentation can be read > > ambiguously w.r.t. this property. > > > > This patch updates the documentation regarding IRQF_NO_SUSPEND to make > > this caveat explicit, hopefully making future misuse rarer. Cleanup of > > existing misuse will occur as part of later patch series. > > > > Cc: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> > > Cc: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com> > > Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net> > > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> > > Applied to linux-pm.git/linux-next, thanks! > > Peter, please let me know if you don't want this to go it.
No seems fine, Thanks!
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
| |