Re: [linux-pm] [RFC][PATCH][1/8] PM: Rework handling of interruptsduring suspend-resume (rev. 5)

[Alan Stern]

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> > > > So perhaps you're worried about drivers that aren't sufficiently
> > > > clever.  Or is something deeper going on?

> > In other words, why not simply abort the suspend if IRQ_PENDING is set
> > for _any_ interrupt during sysdev_suspend()?
> 
> The "wake-up" ones are _intentionally_ left enabled, while the other ones may
> be left enabled by mistake.  The check is intended to prevent the current
> behavior from changing (ie. suspend is aborted if any "wake-up" interrupts
> are pending) and since the platforms only check for the "wake-up" interrupts,
> it doesn't go any further.  Moreover, I think it might introduce a regression
> if it did.

So it _is_ because you are worried about drivers that aren't
sufficiently clever.  If the drivers did their job correctly then there
wouldn't be any pending non-"wake-up" interrupts to confuse matters.

Alan Stern

--
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/