Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq: Rework IRQF_NO_SUSPENDED

Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-07-28T21:09:03Z

On Monday, July 28, 2014 08:49:13 AM Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 01:49:17PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > One more idea, on top of the prototype patch that I posted
> > (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4625921/).
> >
> > The problem with enable_irq_wake() is that it only takes one argument, so
> > if that's a shared interrupt, we can't really say which irqaction is supposed
> > to handle wakeup interrupts should they occur.
>
> Right.
>
> > To address this we can introduce enable_device_irq_wake() that will take
> > an additional dev_id argument (that must be the one passed to request_irq() or
> > the operation will fail) that can be used to identify the irqaction for
> > handling the wakeup interrupts. It can work by setting IRQF_NO_SUSPEND
> > for the irqaction in question and doing the rest along the lines of
> > irq_set_irq_wake(irq, 1). disable_device_irq_wake() will then clear
> > IRQF_NO_SUSPEND (it also has to be passed the dev_id argument).
> >
> > If we have that, the guys who need to set up device interrupts (ie. interrupts
> > normally used for signaling input events etc) for system wakeup will need to
> > use enable_device_irq_wake() and that should just work.
>
> So in the patch I posted I described why NO_SUSPEND is useful, I still
> have to hear a solid reason for why we also need enable_irq_wake()? What
> does it do that cannot be achieved with NO_SUSPEND?
>
> I realize its dynamic, but that's crap, at device registration time it
> pretty much already knows if its a wakeup source or not, right?

It knows that it can be a wakeup source, but it doesn't know if it will be
use that way (user space may not want that, for example).

It still makes sense to use IRQF_NO_SUSPEND for it, but people were complaining
about having to do that in addition to using enable_irq_wake(). Quite
understandably, because usually you want both or at least "wakeup" should
imply "no suspend".

Rafael