Re: [PATCH 13/17] net: gianfar: remove misuse of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag
From: Li Yang
Date: Thu Sep 24 2015 - 17:17:45 EST
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015, Li Yang wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Manoil Claudiu wrote:
>> >> >The device is set as wakeup capable using proper wakeup API but the
>> >> >driver misuses IRQF_NO_SUSPEND to set the interrupt as wakeup source
>> >> >which is incorrect.
>> >> >
>> >> >This patch removes the use of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flags replacing it with
>> >> >enable_irq_wake instead.
>> >> >
>> >> What would be the purpose of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag then? The flag is a
>> >> friendlier API compared to calling enable_irq_wake(). For older kernels,
>> > It's not an API, it's just a bandaid for lazy programmers.
>> >> on PPC architectures, the flag did the job. When did this change? Since
>> >> when using IRQF_NO_SUSPEND is a "misuse"?
>> > It always was. Simply because IRQF_NO_SUSPEND has absolutely nothing
>> > to do with wakeup interrupt sources. It's a flag which excludes the
>> > interrupt from the suspend mechanism, but it does not flag it a wakeup
>> > source.
>> It was not very clear on the intended use of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND at the
>> beginning as it was not documented anywhere. It's good that we have
>> the Documentation/power/suspend-and-interrupts.txt to clarify that
> This is complete and utter bullshit to put it blunt.
> The documentation of IRQF_NO_SUSPEND as non suitable for marking a
> particular device interrupt as wakeup source was added on Feb 20 2015
> with commit 737eb0301f2. Further clarification was added with commit
> 7438b633a6b on Mar 4 2015.
> The IRQF_NO_SUSPEND crap was introduced to gianfar with commit
> 614b42426cc3 on Jul 31 2015.
It is definitely an oversight of us to have missed the new development
on this topic. It's a problem for us and I'm not trying to defend
that. But the decision to use IRQF_NO_SUSPEND for wakeup interrupt
was made several years ago. (https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/7/20/174) I
was just trying to say that it's hard to make the right decision at
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/