Re: [PATCH] PM: suspend_device_irqs(): don't disable wakeup IRQs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Saturday 23 May 2009, Kim Kyuwon wrote:
> On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Saturday 23 May 2009, Kim Kyuwon wrote:
[--snip--]
> >> You changed the really important part of Linux, which may affect most
> >> processor architectures. I think you should be careful. If some of
> >> architectures can't take care of it (they can implement
> >> disable_irq_wake correctly in H/W level, will you revert your changes?
> >
> > No, the changes are not going to be reverted.  In fact things should have been
> > done like this already much earlier.
> >
> > Now, do you have any particular example of a problem related to these changes
> > or is it only a theoretical issue?
> 
> I'd CCing you when I'm sending a mail for this particular example of a example.
> http://markmail.org/thread/fvt7d62arofon5xx

Well, as I said above, reverting the changes that introduced
[suspend|resume]_device_irqs() is not an option, becuase it was the only sane
way to achieve the goal they were added for.  So, we need to fix the wake-up
problem on your platform with the assumption that
[suspend|resume]_device_irqs() are going to stay.

For starters, would it be possible to teach the 'disable' hook of your
platform's interrupt controller not to mask the IRQs that have both
IRQ_WAKEUP and IRQ_SUSPENDED set?  That apparently would work around the
wake-up interrupts problem.

Best,
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/