On ?t 17-03-05 15:44:53, Nigel Cunningham wrote: > Hi. > > On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 15:11, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, David Brownell wrote: > > > > > > Wether the system IRQs must be masked or not is one thing that is > > > > platform specific during suspend. Wether devices must stop their IRQ > > > > emission, well... > > > > > > What's a "system IRQ" as opposed to any other kind? Drivers don't > > > generally know or care how their IRQs are routed, they just care > > > that they get a callback. > > > > Given that on some platforms it's necessary to leave some IRQs enabled for > > remote wakeup to work, the definitions of FREEZE and SUSPEND need to be > > changed. A quiesced device does not perform DMA and does not generate > > interrupt requests _except_ that it may issue wakeup requests (which may > > be IRQs) if it is enabled for remote wakeup. > > I don't think the definition of FREEZE needs to be changed because - > unless I misunderstand - it is only used when swsusp and Suspend2 are > doing their atomic copies. Pavel, is this right? Yes, I think so. Pavel -- People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers... ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
