From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alan Stern Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH][1/8] PM: Rework handling of interrupts during suspend-resume (rev. 5) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 08:37:02 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <200903081100.43757.rjw@sisk.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200903081100.43757.rjw@sisk.pl> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , LKML , Jesse Barnes , "Eric W. Biederman" , pm list , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Thomas Gleixner List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 8 Mar 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > So perhaps you're worried about drivers that aren't sufficiently > > > > clever. Or is something deeper going on? > > In other words, why not simply abort the suspend if IRQ_PENDING is set > > for _any_ interrupt during sysdev_suspend()? > > The "wake-up" ones are _intentionally_ left enabled, while the other ones may > be left enabled by mistake. The check is intended to prevent the current > behavior from changing (ie. suspend is aborted if any "wake-up" interrupts > are pending) and since the platforms only check for the "wake-up" interrupts, > it doesn't go any further. Moreover, I think it might introduce a regression > if it did. So it _is_ because you are worried about drivers that aren't sufficiently clever. If the drivers did their job correctly then there wouldn't be any pending non-"wake-up" interrupts to confuse matters. Alan Stern