On Friday, February 20, 2015 10:31:44 AM Mark Rutland wrote: > [...] [cut] > Given all of the above I'll go back to the IRQF_SHARED_TIMER_OK approach > you proposed, along with documentation updates and comments at usage > sites to make it clear when it is valid to use. > > Thank you for bearing with me so far. No prob. :-) Actually, there's one more approach possible. Thomas might not like it, but here it goes anyway for consideration. What about making it possible to provide a special irqaction to be called while suspended for the shared IRQF_NO_SUSPEND interrupts. Say we have a "suspended_action" pointer in struct irq_desc in addition to "action" and we swap them in suspend_device_irq() if desc->no_suspend_depth is nonzero and "suspended_action" is not NULL (and then back in resume_irq()). Then, the platform might supply "suspended_action" that will do the right thing for the IRQ. So the requirement would be to have "suspended_action" set to start with and then the WARN_ON() in irq_pm_install_action() may check if that is present and only trigger the warning if it isn't. Thoughs? Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
