From: Peter Zijlstra
Date: Fri Jul 25 2014 - 12:58:26 EST

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 07:03:38PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> So here's an idea.
> What about returning IRQ_NONE rather than IRQ_HANDLED for "suspended"
> interrupts (after all, that's what a sane driver would do for a
> suspended device I suppose)?
> If the line is really shared and the interrupt is taken care of by
> the other guy sharing the line, we'll be all fine.
> If that is not the case, on the other hand, and something's really
> broken, we'll end up disabling the interrupt and marking it as
> IRQS_SPURIOUS_DISABLED (if I understand things correctly).
> But then, we can re-enable it and clear the IRQS_SPURIOUS_DISABLED
> flag at the resume_device_irqs() time so the driver can use it again.
> And we'll have a trace of the breakage in dmesg, so possibly we can
> go forth and fix the bad guy.
> Would that make sense?

Works for me..

Attachment: pgpM5Vv3kPWPU.pgp
Description: PGP signature