On Saturday 23 May 2009, Kim Kyuwon wrote: > On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Saturday 23 May 2009, Kim Kyuwon wrote: [--snip--] > >> You changed the really important part of Linux, which may affect most > >> processor architectures. I think you should be careful. If some of > >> architectures can't take care of it (they can implement > >> disable_irq_wake correctly in H/W level, will you revert your changes? > > > > No, the changes are not going to be reverted. In fact things should have been > > done like this already much earlier. > > > > Now, do you have any particular example of a problem related to these changes > > or is it only a theoretical issue? > > I'd CCing you when I'm sending a mail for this particular example of a example. > http://markmail.org/thread/fvt7d62arofon5xx Well, as I said above, reverting the changes that introduced [suspend|resume]_device_irqs() is not an option, becuase it was the only sane way to achieve the goal they were added for. So, we need to fix the wake-up problem on your platform with the assumption that [suspend|resume]_device_irqs() are going to stay. For starters, would it be possible to teach the 'disable' hook of your platform's interrupt controller not to mask the IRQs that have both IRQ_WAKEUP and IRQ_SUSPENDED set? That apparently would work around the wake-up interrupts problem. Best, Rafael _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
