On Friday, August 01, 2014 03:43:21 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > OK, I guess "IRQ_HANDLED from a wakeup interrupt" may be interpreted as
> > IRQ_HANDLED_PMWAKE. On the other hand, if that's going to be handled in
> > handle_irq_event_percpu(), then using a special return code would save us
> > a brach for IRQ_HANDLED interrupts. We could convert it to IRQ_HANDLED
> > immediately then.
>
> We can handle it at the end of the function by calling
> note_interrupt() unconditionally do the following there:
>
> if (suspended) {
> if (ret == IRQ_NONE) {
> if (shared)
> yell_and_abort_or_resume();
> } else {
> abort_or_resume();
> }
> }
> if (noirqdebug)
> return;
I see.
> > OK, I'll take a stab at the IRQF_SHARED thing if you don't mind.
>
> Definitely not :)
>
> > Here's my current understanding of what can be done for IRQF_NO_SUSPEND.
> >
> > In suspend_device_irqs():
> >
> > (1) If all actions in the list have the same setting (eg. IRQF_NO_SUSPEND
> > unset),
> > keep the current behavior.
> > (2) If the actions have different settings:
> > - Actions with IRQF_NO_SUSPEND set are not modified.
> > - Actions with IRQF_NO_SUSPEND unset are switched over to a stub
> > handler.
> > - IRQS_SUSPEND_MODE (new flag) is set for the IRQ.
>
> Can we please do that in setup_irq() and let the shared ones always
> run through the stub? That keeps suspend/resume_device_irqs() simple.
OK
Rafael
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
