On Thursday 26 February 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thursday 26 February 2009, Arve Hjønnevåg wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > BTW, appended is the current (3rd) version of the $subject patch with some > >> > of your comments taken into account. In particular, I did the following: > >> > - moved [suspend|resume]_device_irqs() to a separate file (pm.c) > >> > - fixed interrupt.h so that their headers are at a better place > >> > - made enable_irq() clear IRQ_SUSPENDED > >> > - made device_power_down() and device_power_up() call > >> > suspend_device_irqs() and resume_device_irqs(), respectively, which > >> > simplified the callers quite a bit (it changed the Xen code ordering, though, > >> > but I _think_ it still should work). > >> > >> Do you plan to fix edge triggered wakeup interrupts? It still looks > >> like edge triggered wakeup interrupts that occur between > >> suspend_device_irqs and local_irq_disable will not cause a wakeup. > > > > In the current version of the patch the interrupts that have IRQ_WAKEUP set > > in status are not disabled. Is this not enough? > > That is enough for drivers that use wakelocks to abort suspend (if I > fix the wakelock code to not use a platform device as its last abort > point). It is not enough if you don't have wakelocks, since the > interrupt can occur after suspend_late has been called and the driver > has no way to abort suspend. Well, how exactly the $subject patch does cause this problem to happen? Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
