On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 10:50:15 +0200 (CEST) Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012, NeilBrown wrote: > > > Level triggered interrupts do not cause IRQS_PENDING to be set, so > > check_wakeup_irqs ignores them. > > They don't need to set IRQS_PENDING as the level stays high which > > shows that they must be pending. However if such an interrupt fired > > during late suspend, it will have been masked so the fact that it > > is still asserted will not cause the suspend to abort. > > > > So if any wakeup interrupt is masked, unmask it when checking wakeup > > irqs. If the interrupt is asserted, suspend will abort. > > > > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <[email protected]> > > --- > > > > kernel/irq/pm.c | 6 ++++++ > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/irq/pm.c b/kernel/irq/pm.c > > index 15e53b1..0d26206 100644 > > --- a/kernel/irq/pm.c > > +++ b/kernel/irq/pm.c > > @@ -106,6 +106,12 @@ int check_wakeup_irqs(void) > > if (irqd_is_wakeup_set(&desc->irq_data)) { > > if (desc->istate & IRQS_PENDING) > > return -EBUSY; > > + if (irqd_irq_masked(&desc->irq_data)) > > + /* Probably a level interrupt > > + * which fired recently and was > > + * masked > > + */ > > + unmask_irq(desc); > > Oh no. We don't unmask unconditionally. What about an interrupt which > is disabled, has no handler ..... ? That needs more thought. If there is no handler, then irqd_is_wakeup_set() should fail should it not? For disabled: would it be OK to check desc->depth? Something like: if (desc->depth == 1 && (desc->state & IRQS_SUSPENDED) && irqd_irq_masked(&desc->irq_data)) unmask_irq(desc); ?? Thanks, NeilBrown
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
