Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 12 Oct 2010 00:27:15 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] b44: fix resume, request_irq after hw reset |
| |
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:08:05 +0100 James Hogan <james@albanarts.com> wrote:
> > > @@ -2309,6 +2303,12 @@ static int b44_resume(struct ssb_device *sdev) > > > > > > netif_device_attach(bp->dev); > > > spin_unlock_irq(&bp->lock); > > > > > > + rc = request_irq(dev->irq, b44_interrupt, IRQF_SHARED, dev->name, > dev); > > > + if (rc) { > > > + netdev_err(dev, "request_irq failed\n"); > > > + return rc; > > > + } > > > + > > > > > > b44_enable_ints(bp); > > > netif_wake_queue(dev); > > > > OK, running the interrupt handler before b44_init_hw() is presumably > > the problem here. > > > > The hardware surely won't be generating interrupts until we've run > > b44_init_hw() and b44_enable_ints(), so this patch really is only to > > keep CONFIG_DEBUG_SHIRQ happy. > > For me it's mainly to keep CONFIG_DEBUG_SHIRQ happy (Fedora has this switched > on), but since it's a shared IRQ, there is still a chance it could be > called before enabling it's own interrupts by a different device on the same > IRQ.
ooh, yes, you're right, I forgot about that. It's indeed a bug.
> It makes sense to me why it's disabling the IRQ now, in case another device > triggers it when it cannot handle it safely.
What code are you referring to here? There's no disable_irq() in that area?
> I also tried calling the > interrupt directly before the free_irq in the suspend function to check that > it wasn't being done too late, and it didn't fail, so possibly it is the core > suspension that makes it start failing until it is brought back up properly.
| |