On Wed, Jan 05, 2011 at 09:24:25PM +0200, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > > The way this works is that although it isn't disabled at that point, > > if it never triggers, then everything remains happy. However, if it > > does trigger, the genirq code will then mask the interrupt and won't > > call the handler. > > Right.. I didn't see from this point. I will check how that gets unmasked. > But even so, if I understood correctly what you described, it would still > open a time window which the system would see at least 1 interrupt during > the time it was not suppose to. And that can wakeup a system which is in > deep sleep mode, either via dynamic idle or static suspend. > > It is unlikely, I know. But it can still happen. And can be avoided. Maybe a system going into deep sleep mode should update the masked state of the interrupts to reflect the lazy-disable state? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
