Re: [PATCH v4 3/5] irqchip: Add DT binding doc for the virtual irq demuxer chip

From: Boris Brezillon
Date: Mon Feb 23 2015 - 15:16:40 EST

On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 18:14:48 +0000
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:


> > This is because irq_may_run [1], which is called to decide whether we
> > should handle this irq or just wake the system up [2], will always
> > return true if at least one of the shared action has tagged the irq
> > line as a wakeup source.
> I assume you mean we return false in this case (having triggered the
> wakeup within irq_pm_check_wakeup, which returned true), but otherwise
> agreed.

Yep, I meant 'return false'.

> I can envisage problems if the irq handler of a wakeup device can't be
> run safely until resume time, though I'm not sure if that happens in
> practice given the device is necessarily going to be active.

Isn't that the purpose of the
flag ?

> > Sorry for summarizing things you most likely already know, but I want
> > to be sure I'm actually understanding it correctly.
> >
> > Now, let's look at how this could be solved.
> > Here is a proposal [3] that does the following:
> This would be a lot easier to follow/review as an RFC post to the
> mailing list.

Yep, that was the plan, just wanted to make sure I had correctly
understood the problem before posting an RFC.

> Otherwise I have some high-level comments on the stuff
> below, which I think matches the shape of what we discussed on IRC.
> > 1/ prevent a system wakeup when at least one of the action handler
> > has set the IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag
> We might need to add some logic to enable_irq_wake and
> irq_pm_install_action to prevent some of the horrible mismatch cases we
> can get here (e.g. if we have a wakeup handler, a IRQF_NO_SUSPEND
> handler, and another handler which is neither). We may need to
> reconsider temporarily stashing the other potential interrupts.

Actually if we force users to pass the IRQF_XXX_SAFE (I'm tired writing
all the potential names :-)), when mixing IRQF_NO_SUSPEND
and !IRQF_NO_SUSPEND handlers, we shouldn't bother deactivating normal
handlers (those without IRQF_NO_SUSPEND), 'cause they claimed they could
safely be called in suspended state.

> Do we perhaps need an IRQF_SHARED_WAKEUP_SIBLING_OK for timer drivers to
> assert their handlers are safe for the whole suspend period rather than
> just the period they expect to be enabled for? Or do those always
> happen to be safe in practice?

I thought they were always safe...

> > 2/ Add a few helpers to deal with system wakeup from drivers code
> The irq_pm_force_wakeup part looks like what I had in mind.
> > 3/ Rework the at91 RTC driver to show how such weird cases could be
> > handled
> It might be simpler to do this with a PM notifier within the driver
> rather than having to traverse all the irq_descs, though perhaps not.

I'm not sure to understand that one. Where am I traversing irq_descs
(irq_to_desc, which is called when testing wakeup_armed status, is a
direct table indexing operation) ?
Moreover, I'm not sure when the PM_POST_SUSPEND event is sent, and
testing the WAKEUP_ARMED flag should be safe in all cases, right ?

> > Of course, I'll need the IRQF_SHARED_TIMER_OK patch to prevent the
> > WARN_ON backtrace.
> That should be fine; it's backed up in the list archive ;)
> > Please, let me know if I missed anything important, share your opinion
> > on this proposal, and feel free to propose any other solution.
> Hopefully the above covers that!

Yes it does.
Thanks for the review.

Best Regards,


Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at