> @@ -659,26 +674,61 @@ static pm_message_t resume_event(pm_mess
> }
>
> /**
> - * device_suspend_noirq - Shut down one device (late suspend).
> - * @dev: Device.
> - * @state: PM transition of the system being carried out.
> + * __device_suspend_noirq - Execute a "late" suspend callback for given device.
> + * @dev: Device to suspend.
> + * @state: PM transition of the system being carried out.
> *
> - * This is called with interrupts off and only a single CPU running.
that still looks like useful comment... why delete it?
> + * The driver of the device won't receive interrupts while this function is
> + * being executed.
> */
> @@ -696,13 +746,19 @@ int dpm_suspend_noirq(pm_message_t state
> suspend_device_irqs();
> mutex_lock(&dpm_list_mtx);
> list_for_each_entry_reverse(dev, &dpm_list, power.entry) {
> + dev->power.status = DPM_OFF_IRQ;
> error = device_suspend_noirq(dev, state);
> if (error) {
> pm_dev_err(dev, state, " late", error);
> + dev->power.status = DPM_OFF;
> + break;
> + }
> + if (async_error) {
> + error = async_error;
> break;
async_error is 'interesting'. How does locking work in noirq case?
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
_______________________________________________
linux-pm mailing list
linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
