Re: [PATCH 1/5] genirq: Support mixing IRQF_NO_SUSPEND/IRQF_SUSPEND on shared irqs
From: Rafael J. Wysocki
Date: Mon Dec 15 2014 - 16:23:57 EST
On Monday, December 15, 2014 05:15:48 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
> The current implementation forbid sharing an irq line on devices that do
> not request the same behavior on suspend/resume (controlled via the
> IRQF_NO_SUSPEND/IRQF_FORCE_RESUME flags).
IRQF_NO_SUSPEND is practically only for timers and IPIs now. Any other
usages are strongly discouraged.
> Add a flag (IRQF_SUSPEND_NOACTION) to specify that you don't want to be
> called in suspend mode, and that you already took care of disabling the
> interrupt on the device side.
> The suspend_device_irq will now move actions specifying the
> IRQF_SUSPEND_NOACTION into a temporary list so that they won't be called
> when the interrupt is triggered, and resume_irq_actions restores the
> suspended actions into the active action list.
Why is the current way of handling wakeup interrupts not sufficient?
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
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/