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

Peter Zijlstra
2014-07-25T16:58:22Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 896 bytes --]

On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 07:03:38PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> So here's an idea.
>
> What about returning IRQ_NONE rather than IRQ_HANDLED for "suspended"
> interrupts (after all, that's what a sane driver would do for a
> suspended device I suppose)?
>
> If the line is really shared and the interrupt is taken care of by
> the other guy sharing the line, we'll be all fine.
>
> If that is not the case, on the other hand, and something's really
> broken, we'll end up disabling the interrupt and marking it as
> IRQS_SPURIOUS_DISABLED (if I understand things correctly).
>
> But then, we can re-enable it and clear the IRQS_SPURIOUS_DISABLED
> flag at the resume_device_irqs() time so the driver can use it again.
> And we'll have a trace of the breakage in dmesg, so possibly we can
> go forth and fix the bad guy.
>
> Would that make sense?

Works for me..

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]