Re: [PATCH] genirq: do not disable IRQ_WAKEUP marked irqs on suspend

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> writes:
> 
> > commit 0a0c5168df (PM: Introduce functions for suspending and resuming
> > device interrupts) iterates through all interrupts and disables them
> > on the hardware level. Some architectures have functionality
> > implemented to mark an interrupt source as wakeup source for suspend,
> > but the new power management code disables them unconditionally which
> > breaks the resume on interrupt functionality.
> >
> > The wakeup interrupts are marked in the status with the IRQ_WAKEUP
> > bit. Skip the disablement for those interrupts which have the
> > IRQ_WAKEUP bit set.
> >     
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> > Cc: stable@kernel.org
> 
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> I posted the same patch last month and lost the argument, original
> thread here:
> 
>   http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/6/549

Err no. Care to look at the difference ? 

I missed the above discussion, but I'm revisiting the delayed disable
issue.

> 
> > diff --git a/kernel/irq/pm.c b/kernel/irq/pm.c
> > index 638d8be..bce6afd 100644
> > --- a/kernel/irq/pm.c
> > +++ b/kernel/irq/pm.c
> > @@ -29,7 +29,8 @@ void suspend_device_irqs(void)
> >  		unsigned long flags;
> >  
> >  		spin_lock_irqsave(&desc->lock, flags);
> > -		__disable_irq(desc, irq, true);
> > +		if (!(desc->status & IRQ_WAKEUP))
> > +			__disable_irq(desc, irq, true);
> >  		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&desc->lock, flags);
> >  	}
> >  
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>