On Saturday 23 May 2009, Kim Kyuwon wrote:On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:[--snip--]On Saturday 23 May 2009, Kim Kyuwon wrote:I'd CCing you when I'm sending a mail for this particular example of a example.You changed the really important part of Linux, which may affect mostNo, the changes are not going to be reverted. In fact things should have been
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?
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?
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.