From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF837DDE44 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:06:11 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] synchronize_irq needs a barrier From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Maxim Levitsky In-Reply-To: <200710200510.01409.maximlevitsky@gmail.com> References: <1192670742.12879.5.camel@pasglop> <200710200402.43106.maximlevitsky@gmail.com> <200710200510.01409.maximlevitsky@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:06:01 +1000 Message-Id: <1192853161.17235.34.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev list , akpm , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel list Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , > > - even when you ignore the interrupt (because the driver doesn't care, > > it's suspending), you need to make sure the hardware gets shut up by > > reading (or writing) the proper interrupt status register. > I agree, but while device is powered off, its registers can't be accessed > Thus, if I ack the IRQ every time the handler is called, I will access the > powered off device (this is probably won't hurt a lot, but a bit incorrectly) It will actually crash your machine on some platforms. So no, best is to -not- ack. The masking is enough, the IRQ will go down eventually. Ben.