On Sun, 8 Mar 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > So perhaps you're worried about drivers that aren't sufficiently > > > > clever. Or is something deeper going on? > > In other words, why not simply abort the suspend if IRQ_PENDING is set > > for _any_ interrupt during sysdev_suspend()? > > The "wake-up" ones are _intentionally_ left enabled, while the other ones may > be left enabled by mistake. The check is intended to prevent the current > behavior from changing (ie. suspend is aborted if any "wake-up" interrupts > are pending) and since the platforms only check for the "wake-up" interrupts, > it doesn't go any further. Moreover, I think it might introduce a regression > if it did. So it _is_ because you are worried about drivers that aren't sufficiently clever. If the drivers did their job correctly then there wouldn't be any pending non-"wake-up" interrupts to confuse matters. Alan Stern _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
