Hello Thomas,
Sorry to miss the V2 in the subject.
I have updated the comments in this new patch, could you consider to take it
into upstream?
Thanks.
Best Regards
Liu chuansheng
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liu, Chuansheng
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 5:58 PM
> To: t...@linutronix.de
> Cc: mi...@redhat.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Liu, Chuansheng
> Subject: [PATCH 2/3] genirq: Do not consider the irqs with IRQF_NO_SUSPEND
> in check_wakeup_irqs()
>
>
> According to commit 9c6079aa1bf(genirq: Do not consider disabled
> wakeup irqs), we should not break the suspend when one interrupt has
> been disabled before suspending and is pending there.
>
> But there is another case missed:
> If an interrupt which is marked IRQF_NO_SUSPEND has been disabled
> before suspend invocation then desc->depth is 1 and therefor it should
> not be checked for IRQS_PENDING in check_wakeup_irqs().
>
> Here also checking if the desc->istate & IRQS_SUSPENDED is true to avoid
> this case.
>
> Signed-off-by: liu chuansheng <chuansheng....@intel.com>
> ---
> kernel/irq/pm.c | 9 ++++++++-
> 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/irq/pm.c b/kernel/irq/pm.c
> index cb228bf..f02a03d 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq/pm.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq/pm.c
> @@ -107,9 +107,16 @@ int check_wakeup_irqs(void)
> * Only interrupts which are marked as wakeup source
> * and have not been disabled before the suspend check
> * can abort suspend.
> + *
> + * Meanwhile, if an interrupt which is marked IRQF_NO_SUSPEND
> + * has been disabled before suspend invocation then
> + * desc->depth is 1 and therefor it should not be checked
> + * for IRQS_PENDING, so also adding the checking of
> + * desc->istate & IRQS_SUSPENDED for this case.
> */
> if (irqd_is_wakeup_set(&desc->irq_data)) {
> - if (desc->depth == 1 && desc->istate & IRQS_PENDING)
> + if (desc->depth == 1 && (desc->istate & IRQS_PENDING)
> + && (desc->istate & IRQS_SUSPENDED))
> return -EBUSY;
> continue;
> }
> --
> 1.7.0.4
>
>
