Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] PM: Rework handling of interrupts during suspend-resume

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Thursday 26 February 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thursday 26 February 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> 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.

Well, how exactly the $subject patch does cause this problem to happen?

Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/