Re: [PATCH] fix tulip suspend/resume

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>]

> 
> I think unregistering the handler is the equivalent and easier to get
> right.  Otherwise, the driver developer needs to check a flag in the
> interrupt handler to see if the device is sleeping, and if it is then
> return IRQ_NONE.  Both options would work fine, but I don't see a race
> condition with free_irq().

You still need to disable IRQs on chip tho before you free_irq or you'll
put other devices sharing your interrupt in real pain in case your hw
accidentally emits one :)
 
> > To not be racy, the best is to synchronize though. Something like this
> > pseudo code:
> > 
> > suspend():
> > 
> >   1) chip_disable_irq(); /* disable emission of IRQs on the chip,
> >                           * maybe do that & below in a spinlock_irq
> >                           * to make sure no other driver code path
> >                           * re-enables them
> >                           */
> > 
> >   2) me->sleeping = 1;  /* tells the rest of the driver I'm not there
> >                          * anymore, can be some netif_* thingy.
> >                          */
> > 
> >   3) synchronize_irq(me->irq); /* make sure above is visible to IRQs and
> >                                 * any pending one competes on another
> >                                 * CPU
> >                                 */
> 
> free_irq doesn't return until all pending irqs have completed, so we
> don't need to do this if we're using the method I proposed.  In fact,
> I think it calls synchronize_irq.

Yes. free_irq above would be equivalent to synchronize_irq() and a good
replacement for it. With it, you don't even need the me->sleeping & test
in the IRQ handler since you simply cant call the IRQ handler after it's
free'd :)

> > 
> >   4) pci_set_power_state(), maybe free_irq(), etc...
> > 
> > 
> > my_irq_handler():
> > 
> >   if (me->sleeping)
> >     return IRQ_NONE;
> > 
> > That's it.
> > 
> > Ben.
> 
> Thanks,
> Adam
>