From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: NeilBrown Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] IRQ: allow check_wakeup_irqs to notice level-triggered interrupts. Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:39:16 +1000 Message-ID: <20120425193916.0db1b4b1@notabene.brown> References: <20120425025637.7832.14013.stgit@notabene.brown> <20120425030524.7832.85239.stgit@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/hnsoQzRsD4uxXdJuDwM76Dm"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Tony Lindgren , Russell King , Samuel Ortiz , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org --Sig_/hnsoQzRsD4uxXdJuDwM76Dm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:50:15 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 25 Apr 2012, NeilBrown wrote: >=20 > > Level triggered interrupts do not cause IRQS_PENDING to be set, so > > check_wakeup_irqs ignores them. > > They don't need to set IRQS_PENDING as the level stays high which > > shows that they must be pending. However if such an interrupt fired > > during late suspend, it will have been masked so the fact that it > > is still asserted will not cause the suspend to abort. > >=20 > > So if any wakeup interrupt is masked, unmask it when checking wakeup > > irqs. If the interrupt is asserted, suspend will abort. > >=20 > > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown > > --- > >=20 > > kernel/irq/pm.c | 6 ++++++ > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > >=20 > > diff --git a/kernel/irq/pm.c b/kernel/irq/pm.c > > index 15e53b1..0d26206 100644 > > --- a/kernel/irq/pm.c > > +++ b/kernel/irq/pm.c > > @@ -106,6 +106,12 @@ int check_wakeup_irqs(void) > > if (irqd_is_wakeup_set(&desc->irq_data)) { > > if (desc->istate & IRQS_PENDING) > > return -EBUSY; > > + if (irqd_irq_masked(&desc->irq_data)) > > + /* Probably a level interrupt > > + * which fired recently and was > > + * masked > > + */ > > + unmask_irq(desc); >=20 > Oh no. We don't unmask unconditionally. What about an interrupt which > is disabled, has no handler ..... ? That needs more thought. If there is no handler, then irqd_is_wakeup_set() should fail should it not? For disabled: would it be OK to check desc->depth? Something like: if (desc->depth =3D=3D 1 && (desc->state & IRQS_SUSPENDED) && irqd_irq_masked(&desc->irq_data)) unmask_irq(desc); ?? Thanks, NeilBrown --Sig_/hnsoQzRsD4uxXdJuDwM76Dm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUBT5fGRDnsnt1WYoG5AQJvKw/+KKhBJMIFk8CpZ8OAPy9UCzUqx34VChwC av/lWZAzuiggZWVOx1f5AAeJuFuMw3qX/9H8Js/xEVJU/v1FerOO3yzQVIQp2VSr 4VP1jcWNA5KI6tP85D3ChJaZNNiUSQMCs6ui+Vzi1kSvR4KyD/os+cS+/XofEx4z cFNSGf7QTHhDJiCtP6AlAvlxfL68uJ1bsIyqYOvo996hiD2Jk6yZGKhBpN0gDjwu Rk/pwqxt+/BZqFktrQWvQLPRq5uMelWobBk5tnCk/BH/ZQqSBkUn9Ur499ePIKNw 3IxDRcWd9qyZKZgOk1xgCF0Q4asESfHyFSOzULfz6T33ue5mR7ORtKPhBw4LboyI s4+PB6qRTbqP99JO++BzOvbz71rpbs0OgfxtilW+nF5BWA85xYtCyAS8AXW7q5IR wOGMuVC+KQSKkvKMbUpTCN/Jw4J1S0OL4Cg69SXZPfnxuoU6a8Uy0SCLA6MkOXd7 E2tHsaYi2idxL3t7PbNVdO81I0fECtXXevYo/cIkuGNpQS6FKg+cf5GexIcYajW5 vEv8+XIvseYcMLEXLVrQMLFd/kaI5pbc66l1nJWOqZX31hQe5K4HVoGluKLoZRgM OYtZ8PSWV4fqm1t/Y+WINd43m6KNpPm1zQWIvmbxmICvh8bU68+4ZPPqSnnpaqbs JUkHdXE5Rw8= =LroV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/hnsoQzRsD4uxXdJuDwM76Dm--