On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 01:10:36AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > There is still enable_irq_wake()/IRQD_WAKEUP_STATE that tries to serve > > a similar purpose but is equially wrecked for shared interrupts, > > ideally this would be removed. > > Let me comment about this particular thing. > > I had a discussion with Dmitry about that and his argument was that > enable_irq_wake() should imply IRQF_NO_SUSPEND, because drivers that > set up interrupts for system wakeup should expect those interrupts to > trigger at any time, including system suspend. Hence the patch that > added the IRQD_WAKEUP_STATE check to __disable_irq(). > > However, in the face of the problem that is being addressed here I'm > not really sure that this argument is valid, because if the driver > calling enable_irq_wake() is sharing the IRQ with another one, the > other driver may not actually know that the IRQ will be a wakeup one > and still may not expect interrupts to come to it during system > suspend/resume. > > Yes, drivers using enable_irq_wake() will likely want IRQF_NO_SUSPEND to > be set for their irqactions, but that should not imply "no suspend" for > all irqactions sharing the same desc. So I guess it may be better to go > forth and use a global "interrupts suspended" state variable instead of the > IRQS_SUSPENDED flag for each desc and throw away the IRQD_WAKEUP_STATE > check from suspend_device_irqs() entirely. > > Peter, it looks like you'd prefer that?
My preference would be to shoot enable_irq_wake() in the head, its fundamentally broken. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
