On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 13:17:58 -0400 (EDT) Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Kristen Carlson Accardi wrote: > > > I was thinking about this last night, and I realized that I wasn't > > thinking of the shared interrupts correctly. One thing we could do > > to take care of the shared interrupts while in suspend issue would > > be to make a flag that would indicate whether the device can receive > > irqs as a wake up source. Then, in the irq handler you could > > check if you are suspended, and if the flag is not set then you > > can ignore the irq, otherwise you would need to wake up and see if > > it is for you. I believe this would at least get rid of the > > problem with having a lot of wakeups. If you wanted to optimize > > further, you could also only do the get/put if your device has > > the can_wake_irq flag (or whatever) set. > > Yes, that would work. Once we move to threaded interrupts, that is. > > Alan Stern > Would you guys like me to send you a patch that you can add to your development kernel to put make usb_hcd_irq threaded? I can also add the can_wake_irq stuff in a separate (dependent) patch. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
