On Monday, December 15, 2014 05:15:48 PM Boris Brezillon wrote: > The current implementation forbid sharing an irq line on devices that do > not request the same behavior on suspend/resume (controlled via the > IRQF_NO_SUSPEND/IRQF_FORCE_RESUME flags).
IRQF_NO_SUSPEND is practically only for timers and IPIs now. Any other usages are strongly discouraged. > Add a flag (IRQF_SUSPEND_NOACTION) to specify that you don't want to be > called in suspend mode, and that you already took care of disabling the > interrupt on the device side. > > The suspend_device_irq will now move actions specifying the > IRQF_SUSPEND_NOACTION into a temporary list so that they won't be called > when the interrupt is triggered, and resume_irq_actions restores the > suspended actions into the active action list. Why is the current way of handling wakeup interrupts not sufficient? -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
