Re: [PATCH] i2c: exynos5: Properly use the "noirq" variants of suspend/resume

[Kevin Hilman]

Doug Anderson <dianders@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

[...]

> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure noirq is going to work correctly, at least not with current
>> callbacks. I can see a call to clk_prepare_enable() there which needs to
>> acquire a mutex.
>
> Nice catch, thanks!  :)
>
> OK, looking at that now.  Interestingly this doesn't seem to cause us
> problems in our ChromeOS 3.8 tree.  I just tried enabling:
>   CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y
>
> ...and confirmed that I got it on right:
>
> # zgrep -i atomic /proc/config.gz
> CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP=y
>
> I can suspend/resume with no problems.  My bet is that it works fine because:
>
> * resume_noirq is not considered "atomic" in the sense enforced by
> CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP (at least not in 3.8--I haven't tried on
> ToT)

The reason is because "noirq" in the suspend/resume path actually means
no *device* IRQs for that specific device.

It's often assumed that the "noirq" callbacks are called with *all*
interrupts disabled, but that's not the case.  Only the IRQs for that
specific device are disabled when its noirq callbacks run.

Kevin
--
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/