Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] genirq: describe IRQF_COND_SUSPEND | Date | Wed, 04 Mar 2015 22:55:58 +0100 |
| |
On Wednesday, March 04, 2015 08:00:40 PM Mark Rutland wrote: > With certain restrictions it is possible for a wakeup device to share > and IRQ with an IRQF_NO_SUSPEND user, and the warnings introduced by > commit cab303be91dc47942bc25de33dc1140123540800 are spurious. The new > IRQF_COND_SUSPEND flag allows drivers to tell the core when these > restrictions are met, allowing spurious warnings to be silenced. > > This patch documents how IRQF_COND_SUSPEND is expected to be used, > updating some of the text now made invalid by its addition. > > Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> > Cc: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> > Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com> > --- > Documentation/power/suspend-and-interrupts.txt | 16 +++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > As promised previously, take IRQF_COND_SUSPEND into account in the > documentation. > > Rafael, does this look OK to you?
Yes, it does, thanks!
I'll queue it up along with the rest of the IRQF_COND_SUSPEND patches.
> diff --git a/Documentation/power/suspend-and-interrupts.txt b/Documentation/power/suspend-and-interrupts.txt > index 50493c9..8afb29a 100644 > --- a/Documentation/power/suspend-and-interrupts.txt > +++ b/Documentation/power/suspend-and-interrupts.txt > @@ -112,8 +112,9 @@ any special interrupt handling logic for it to work. > IRQF_NO_SUSPEND and enable_irq_wake() > ------------------------------------- > > -There are no valid reasons to use both enable_irq_wake() and the IRQF_NO_SUSPEND > -flag on the same IRQ. > +There are very few valid reasons to use both enable_irq_wake() and the > +IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag on the same IRQ, and it is never valid to use both for the > +same device. > > First of all, if the IRQ is not shared, the rules for handling IRQF_NO_SUSPEND > interrupts (interrupt handlers are invoked after suspend_device_irqs()) are > @@ -122,4 +123,13 @@ handlers are not invoked after suspend_device_irqs()). > > Second, both enable_irq_wake() and IRQF_NO_SUSPEND apply to entire IRQs and not > to individual interrupt handlers, so sharing an IRQ between a system wakeup > -interrupt source and an IRQF_NO_SUSPEND interrupt source does not make sense. > +interrupt source and an IRQF_NO_SUSPEND interrupt source does not generally > +make sense. > + > +In rare cases an IRQ can be shared between a wakeup device driver and an > +IRQF_NO_SUSPEND user. In order for this to be safe, the wakeup device driver > +must be able to discern spurious IRQs from genuine wakeup events (signalling > +the latter to the core with pm_system_wakeup()), must use enable_irq_wake() to > +ensure that the IRQ will function as a wakeup source, and must request the IRQ > +with IRQF_COND_SUSPEND to tell the core that it meets these requirements. If > +these requirements are not met, it is not valid to use IRQF_COND_SUSPEND. >
-- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
| |