From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
khilman@deeprootsystems.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genirq: do not disable IRQ_WAKEUP marked irqs on suspend
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 00:56:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200906230056.06387.rjw@sisk.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090622142722.183fedc8.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Monday 22 June 2009, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:52:46 +0200 (CEST)
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/4/448
> > >
> > > Only difference is I did the checking outside of the lock, which is
> > > probably wrong. In any case, you'll be interested in the thread that
> > > follows.
> >
> > Hmm, darn. That means that on hardware which has trouble with the
> > delayed disable and therefor uses it's own chip->disable_irq() method
> > the suspend logic is wreckaged.
>
> Does this maen that your original patch is no longer applicable to
> mainline/-stable?
I'd say so. There are good arguments for not doing this.
> > But there is always a way to get broken hardware tamed. :)
> >
> > suspend does:
> > __disable_irq();
> > status |= IRQ_SUSPENDED;
> > chip->disable_irq();
> >
> > resume does:
> > __enable_irq();
> > status &= ~IRQ_SUSPENDED;
> > chip->enable_irq();
> >
> > So
> >
> > - set_irq_handler(handle_level_irq);
> > + set_irq_handler(my_own_handler);
> >
> > +my_own_handler()
> > +{
> > + if (!(status & IRQ_SUSPENDED)) {
> > + handle_level_irq();
> > + } else {
> > + mask_at_hardware_level();
> > + status |= IRQ_PENDING;
> > + save_important_information();
> > + }
> > +}
> >
> > my_disable_irq()
> > {
> > + if (!(status & IRQ_SUSPENDED))
> > mask_at_hardware_level();
> > }
> >
> > my_enable_irq()
> > {
> > + if (important_information_has_been_saved)
> > + replay_what_happened();
> > +
> > unmask_at_hardware_level();
> > }
> >
> > Ugly, but that might work somehow. Not sure about the replay part, but
> > that can be deferred via some more hackery as well :)
> >
> > Raphael, these delayed disable and the chip->irq_disable() override
> > implications vs. suspend really need to be documented. The current
> > comment of suspend_device_irqs() is bogus:
> >
> > * During system-wide suspend or hibernation device interrupts need to be
> > * disabled at the chip level and this function is provided for this purpose.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-22 22:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <cMiA9-1MZ-13@gated-at.bofh.it>
2009-06-12 17:56 ` Kevin Hilman
2009-06-12 18:09 ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-06-12 18:33 ` Kevin Hilman
2009-06-12 19:52 ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-06-22 21:27 ` Andrew Morton
2009-06-22 22:56 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2009-06-22 22:54 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2009-06-12 17:09 Thomas Gleixner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200906230056.06387.rjw@sisk.pl \
--to=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=khilman@deeprootsystems.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome