On Sat 2015-03-07 11:20:56, Sylvain Rochet wrote: > Hello, > > On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 10:18:46AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 11:53:08AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > If everyone else is happy with this using IRQF_NO_SUSPEND for now then > > > don't let my comments above block this patch. > > > > Yeah, I'm really not happy with NO_SUSPEND + enable_irq_wake(). > > > > I really want that combo to BUG/WARN -- esp. since there's so much cargo > > culted crap out there. > > > > We should make robust interfaces, not randomly toggle flags until it > > mostly works by accident rather than by design -- which is what this > > feels like. > > > > And while I appreciate the watchdog use-case; I think the easiest > > solution for now is to simply disable the wathdog over suspend until > > we've come up with something that makes sense. > > > > As it is, you need to 'suspend' the watchdog at some point anyhow; you > > don't want that thing to wake you from whatever suspend state you're in. > > The Atmel watchdog can't be stopped once it's started. This is actually > very useful so we can reset if suspend or resume failed, the only > drawback is that you have to wake up from time to time (e.g. by using > the RTC/RTT) to clear the watchdog and then go back to sleep ASAP. Yeah. So you do "echo mem > /sys/power/state", and few seconds/minutes after watchdog kills the system. But you did not ask for dead system, you asked for suspend. And while that behaviour is useful for you, I don't think it is exactly useful behaviour, nor it is the behaviour user would expect. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
