On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 03:33:23 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 02:46:41 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Jul 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, July 28, 2014 11:53:15 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Monday, July 28, 2014 02:33:41 PM Thoma
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 09:28:43PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:20:08PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
>
> > I'm curious what you mean. Are you referring to the fact that its input
> > is simply an IRQ number (regardless of whether the IRQ is shared), not
> > something tha
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 12:20:08PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> I'm curious what you mean. Are you referring to the fact that its input
> is simply an IRQ number (regardless of whether the IRQ is shared), not
> something that identifies the particular handler (e.g., struct
> irqaction)?
Yes. I kn
Hi Peter,
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 07:58:47AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 01:10:36AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > 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
>
On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 02:46:41 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>
> > On Monday, July 28, 2014 11:53:15 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 28, 2014 02:33:41 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 28 Jul 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
On Tue, 29 Jul 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, July 28, 2014 11:53:15 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, July 28, 2014 02:33:41 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Mon, 28 Jul 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 01:49:17PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, July 28, 2014 11:53:15 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, July 28, 2014 02:33:41 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Jul 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 01:49:17PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
[cut]
> > So we are not going to make everything a si
On Monday, July 28, 2014 02:33:41 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 01:49:17PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > One more idea, on top of the prototype patch that I posted
> > > (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4625921/).
> > >
On Monday, July 28, 2014 08:49:13 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 01:49:17PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > One more idea, on top of the prototype patch that I posted
> > (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4625921/).
> >
> > The problem with enable_irq_wake() is that it on
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 02:33:41PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I realize its dynamic, but that's crap, at device registration time it
> > pretty much already knows if its a wakeup source or not, right?
>
> It does, but that doesn't make it crap. There are situations where you
> want certain
On Mon, 28 Jul 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 01:49:17PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > One more idea, on top of the prototype patch that I posted
> > (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4625921/).
> >
> > The problem with enable_irq_wake() is that it only takes one arg
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 01:49:17PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> One more idea, on top of the prototype patch that I posted
> (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4625921/).
>
> The problem with enable_irq_wake() is that it only takes one argument, so
> if that's a shared interrupt, we can't re
On Saturday, July 26, 2014 12:25:29 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, July 25, 2014 11:00:12 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 25, 2014 03:25:41 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > OK, so Rafael said there's devices that keep on ra
On Saturday, July 26, 2014 01:49:17 PM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, July 26, 2014 12:25:29 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, July 25, 2014 11:00:12 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 25, 2014 03:25:41 PM Peter Zi
On Saturday, July 26, 2014 12:25:29 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, July 25, 2014 11:00:12 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 25, 2014 03:25:41 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > OK, so Rafael said there's devices that keep on ra
On Saturday, July 26, 2014 12:25:29 AM Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, July 25, 2014 11:00:12 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 25, 2014 03:25:41 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > OK, so Rafael said there's devices that keep on ra
On Friday, July 25, 2014 11:00:12 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Friday, July 25, 2014 03:25:41 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > OK, so Rafael said there's devices that keep on raising their interrupt
> > > until they get attention. Ideally this won't
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Friday, July 25, 2014 03:25:41 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > OK, so Rafael said there's devices that keep on raising their interrupt
> > until they get attention. Ideally this won't happen because the device
> > is suspended etc.. But I'm sure there
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 t
On Friday, July 25, 2014 03:25:41 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 02:40:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:40:48AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > @@ -29,14 +29,20 @@ void suspend_device_irqs(voi
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> If the face of your remark about the level-triggered interrupts that's all
> moot.
It's not only level. That you notice right away.
But for edge you lose the edge and some devices will wait forever that
their irq is handled. Not fun to debug :)
Th
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 02:40:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:40:48AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > @@ -29,14 +29,20 @@ void suspend_device_irqs(void)
> > > for_each_irq_desc(irq, desc) {
> > > unsigned
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 02:47:25PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> So it looks like we really need the "suspend" thing to either disable
> the interrupt entirely (in which case all handlers for all actions
> will not be invoked after it's been suspended) or leave it enabled
> (causing all handler
On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 11:40:48AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > @@ -29,14 +29,20 @@ void suspend_device_irqs(void)
> > for_each_irq_desc(irq, desc) {
> > unsigned long flags;
> >
> > + /*
> > +* Ideally this w
On Friday, July 25, 2014 11:27:25 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:26:20 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Subject: irq: Rework IRQF_NO_SUSPENDED
> > > From: Peter Zijlstra
> > > Date: Thu Jul 24 22:34:50 CEST 2014
> > >
> >
On Friday, July 25, 2014 11:40:48 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > @@ -29,14 +29,20 @@ void suspend_device_irqs(void)
> > for_each_irq_desc(irq, desc) {
> > unsigned long flags;
> >
> > + /*
> > +* Ideally this would
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> @@ -29,14 +29,20 @@ void suspend_device_irqs(void)
> for_each_irq_desc(irq, desc) {
> unsigned long flags;
>
> + /*
> + * Ideally this would be a global state, but we cannot
> + * for the trainw
On Fri, 25 Jul 2014, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:26:20 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Subject: irq: Rework IRQF_NO_SUSPENDED
> > From: Peter Zijlstra
> > Date: Thu Jul 24 22:34:50 CEST 2014
> >
> > Typically when devices are suspended they're quiesced such that they
> >
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.
>
>
On Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:26:20 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Subject: irq: Rework IRQF_NO_SUSPENDED
> From: Peter Zijlstra
> Date: Thu Jul 24 22:34:50 CEST 2014
>
> Typically when devices are suspended they're quiesced such that they
> will not generate any further interrupts.
>
> However some
On Thursday, July 24, 2014 11:26:20 PM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Subject: irq: Rework IRQF_NO_SUSPENDED
> From: Peter Zijlstra
> Date: Thu Jul 24 22:34:50 CEST 2014
>
> Typically when devices are suspended they're quiesced such that they
> will not generate any further interrupts.
>
> However some
31 matches
Mail list logo
