On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Wednesday 06 May 2009, Kevin Hilman wrote: >>> Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > There is at least one problem with that which is why Kyuwon Kim added > the ->disable hook to OMAP's irq_chip. The problem is with drivers > that call disable_irq() in their suspend hook, usually done to prevent > the device from waking the system since on OMAP, any IRQ can be > configured to wake the system. > This does not sound correct. disable_irq_wake should be used for this. A driver may need to mask its interrupt before suspending but this should not also disable it as a wakeup source. > If a driver's suspend hook calls disable_irq() and the system is > suspended before the lazy disable happens in the next handler, then > the system will be suspended with that device's IRQ still enabled. > Without an irq_chip->disable hook, that will result in that device IRQ > waking up the system if it fires. The platform suspend code needs to write the wakeup mask into interrupt controller the before entering suspend. -- Arve Hjønnevåg _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
