Hi Rafael,
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 02:02:59 +0100
"Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
> On Friday, February 20, 2015 10:31:44 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > [...]
>
> [cut]
>
> > Given all of the above I'll go back to the IRQF_SHARED_TIMER_OK approach
> > you proposed, along with documentation updates and
Hi Rafael,
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 02:02:59 +0100
Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net wrote:
On Friday, February 20, 2015 10:31:44 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
[...]
[cut]
Given all of the above I'll go back to the IRQF_SHARED_TIMER_OK approach
you proposed, along with documentation updates
On Friday, February 20, 2015 10:31:44 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
> [...]
[cut]
> Given all of the above I'll go back to the IRQF_SHARED_TIMER_OK approach
> you proposed, along with documentation updates and comments at usage
> sites to make it clear when it is valid to use.
>
> Thank you for
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 18:14:48 +
Mark Rutland wrote:
[...]
> > This is because irq_may_run [1], which is called to decide whether we
> > should handle this irq or just wake the system up [2], will always
> > return true if at least one of the shared action has tagged the irq
> > line as a
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 05:00:57PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> Thanks for the clarification, and sorry if I've been a bit harsh to you
> in my previous answer, but this whole shared irq thing is starting to
> drive me crazy.
No worries. Having lost a few days exploring the core
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the clarification, and sorry if I've been a bit harsh to you
in my previous answer, but this whole shared irq thing is starting to
drive me crazy.
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 15:16:56 +
Mark Rutland wrote:
[...]
>
> An IRQ cannot be shared between a device with
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the clarification, and sorry if I've been a bit harsh to you
in my previous answer, but this whole shared irq thing is starting to
drive me crazy.
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 15:16:56 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
[...]
An IRQ cannot be shared between a device
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 05:00:57PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the clarification, and sorry if I've been a bit harsh to you
in my previous answer, but this whole shared irq thing is starting to
drive me crazy.
No worries. Having lost a few days exploring the core and
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 18:14:48 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
[...]
This is because irq_may_run [1], which is called to decide whether we
should handle this irq or just wake the system up [2], will always
return true if at least one of the shared action has tagged the irq
On Friday, February 20, 2015 10:31:44 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
[...]
[cut]
Given all of the above I'll go back to the IRQF_SHARED_TIMER_OK approach
you proposed, along with documentation updates and comments at usage
sites to make it clear when it is valid to use.
Thank you for bearing
> > * The pmc looks like it could be a valid use of the new flag. It also
> > seems to function as an irqchip.
> >
> > Do any of its child IRQs need to be handled during the suspend-resume
> > cycle? If so using IRQF_NO_SUSPEND would seem to be valid.
>
> No they don't, they are used for
Hi Mark,
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:22:08 +
Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi Boris,
>
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:38:23PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > For the list of impacted drivers, you can have a look at this series [1]
> > (patches 2 to 5), and I'll take care of the testing
Hi Boris,
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:38:23PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
[...]
> For the list of impacted drivers, you can have a look at this series [1]
> (patches 2 to 5), and I'll take care of the testing part once every one
> has agreed on the solution ;-).
>
>
[...]
> > > IRQF_NO_SUSPEND and wakeup fundamentally don't match due to the way
> > > wakeup is implemented in the IRQ core now.
> > >
> > > Unless drivers with IRQF_NO_SUSPEND do the wakeup behind the core's back
> > > which is just disgusting and should never happen.
> >
> > I completely
[...]
IRQF_NO_SUSPEND and wakeup fundamentally don't match due to the way
wakeup is implemented in the IRQ core now.
Unless drivers with IRQF_NO_SUSPEND do the wakeup behind the core's back
which is just disgusting and should never happen.
I completely agree that using
Hi Boris,
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:38:23PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
[...]
For the list of impacted drivers, you can have a look at this series [1]
(patches 2 to 5), and I'll take care of the testing part once every one
has agreed on the solution ;-).
Hi Mark,
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:22:08 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
Hi Boris,
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:38:23PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
[...]
For the list of impacted drivers, you can have a look at this series [1]
(patches 2 to 5), and I'll take care of the
* The pmc looks like it could be a valid use of the new flag. It also
seems to function as an irqchip.
Do any of its child IRQs need to be handled during the suspend-resume
cycle? If so using IRQF_NO_SUSPEND would seem to be valid.
No they don't, they are used for clock
On Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:23:46 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 01:16:50AM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, February 16, 2015 12:23:43 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > > The "suspend" part is kind of a distraction to me here, because that
>
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 01:16:50AM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, February 16, 2015 12:23:43 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > > The "suspend" part is kind of a distraction to me here, because that
> > > > really
> > > > only is about sharing an IRQ with a timer and the
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 01:16:50AM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, February 16, 2015 12:23:43 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
[...]
The suspend part is kind of a distraction to me here, because that
really
only is about sharing an IRQ with a timer and the your interrupt
On Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:23:46 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 01:16:50AM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, February 16, 2015 12:23:43 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
[...]
The suspend part is kind of a distraction to me here, because that
really
On Monday, February 16, 2015 12:23:43 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> [...]
>
> > > The "suspend" part is kind of a distraction to me here, because that
> > > really
> > > only is about sharing an IRQ with a timer and the "your interrupt handler
> > > may be called when the device is suspended" part is
On Monday, February 16, 2015 12:23:43 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
[...]
The suspend part is kind of a distraction to me here, because that
really
only is about sharing an IRQ with a timer and the your interrupt handler
may be called when the device is suspended part is just a
[...]
> > The "suspend" part is kind of a distraction to me here, because that really
> > only is about sharing an IRQ with a timer and the "your interrupt handler
> > may be called when the device is suspended" part is just a consequence of
> > that.
> >
> > So IMO it's better to have "TIMER"
Please change the Subject to start with [PATCH] again when including
patches, otherwise its too easy for them to get lost. Esp. with
excessive quoting on top.
I nearly missed the patch here, seeing nothing in the first page of
text.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 05:13:13PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
Guys, trim your emails, please!
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:51:36PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 03:12:38 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > I guess that would have to imply IRQF_SHARED, so we'd have something
> > like:
> >
> > IRQF_SHARED_SUSPEND_OK - This handler
[...]
The suspend part is kind of a distraction to me here, because that really
only is about sharing an IRQ with a timer and the your interrupt handler
may be called when the device is suspended part is just a consequence of
that.
So IMO it's better to have TIMER in the names to
Guys, trim your emails, please!
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:51:36PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 03:12:38 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
I guess that would have to imply IRQF_SHARED, so we'd have something
like:
IRQF_SHARED_SUSPEND_OK - This handler is safe to
Please change the Subject to start with [PATCH] again when including
patches, otherwise its too easy for them to get lost. Esp. with
excessive quoting on top.
I nearly missed the patch here, seeing nothing in the first page of
text.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 05:13:13PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:09:17AM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:52:15 +
> Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/interrupt.h b/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > > > index d9b05b5..2b8ff50 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/interrupt.h
>
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:52:15 +
Mark Rutland wrote:
> [...]
>
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/interrupt.h b/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > > index d9b05b5..2b8ff50 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > > @@ -57,6 +57,9 @@
> > > *
[...]
> > diff --git a/include/linux/interrupt.h b/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > index d9b05b5..2b8ff50 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > @@ -57,6 +57,9 @@
> > * IRQF_NO_THREAD - Interrupt cannot be threaded
> > * IRQF_EARLY_RESUME - Resume IRQ
[...]
diff --git a/include/linux/interrupt.h b/include/linux/interrupt.h
index d9b05b5..2b8ff50 100644
--- a/include/linux/interrupt.h
+++ b/include/linux/interrupt.h
@@ -57,6 +57,9 @@
* IRQF_NO_THREAD - Interrupt cannot be threaded
* IRQF_EARLY_RESUME - Resume IRQ early during
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:52:15 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
[...]
diff --git a/include/linux/interrupt.h b/include/linux/interrupt.h
index d9b05b5..2b8ff50 100644
--- a/include/linux/interrupt.h
+++ b/include/linux/interrupt.h
@@ -57,6 +57,9 @@
*
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:09:17AM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:52:15 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
[...]
diff --git a/include/linux/interrupt.h b/include/linux/interrupt.h
index d9b05b5..2b8ff50 100644
--- a/include/linux/interrupt.h
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 17:13:13 +
Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:42:22PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 05:15:15 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:20 +
> > > Mark Rutland wrote:
> > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> >
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:38:23PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:32:31 +
> Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:15:15PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:20 +
> > > Mark Rutland wrote:
> > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> >
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:42:22PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 05:15:15 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:20 +
> > Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > > > > So for the flag at request time approach to work, all the
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:32:31 +
Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:15:15PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:20 +
> > Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > > > > So for the flag at request time approach to work, all the drivers
> > >
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:15:15PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:20 +
> Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > > So for the flag at request time approach to work, all the drivers
> > > > > > using
> > > > > > the interrupt would have to flag they're safe
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 17:42:22 +0100
"Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 05:15:15 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:20 +
> > Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > > > > So for the flag at request time approach to work, all the
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 05:15:15 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:20 +
> Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > > So for the flag at request time approach to work, all the drivers
> > > > > > using
> > > > > > the interrupt would have to flag they're
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:20 +
Mark Rutland wrote:
> [...]
>
> > > > > So for the flag at request time approach to work, all the drivers
> > > > > using
> > > > > the interrupt would have to flag they're safe in that context.
> > > >
> > > > Something like IRQF_"I can share the line with
[...]
> > > > So for the flag at request time approach to work, all the drivers using
> > > > the interrupt would have to flag they're safe in that context.
> > >
> > > Something like IRQF_"I can share the line with a timer" I guess? That
> > > wouldn't
> > > hurt and can be checked at request
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 03:12:38 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:17:20PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 02:43:45 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > > > > > +static irqreturn_t __handle_irq_event_percpu(unsigned int
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:39:48PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 04:03:17 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:17:20 +0100
> > "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 02:43:45 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > [...]
>
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 04:03:17 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:17:20 +0100
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 02:43:45 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > > > > > +static irqreturn_t __handle_irq_event_percpu(unsigned int
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:17:20PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 02:43:45 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > > > +static irqreturn_t __handle_irq_event_percpu(unsigned int irq,
> > > > > > > struct irqaction *action)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > >
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:07:48PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 02:14:37 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 02:31:18PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:15:17 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 11,
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:17:20 +0100
"Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 02:43:45 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > > > +static irqreturn_t __handle_irq_event_percpu(unsigned int irq,
> > > > > > > struct irqaction *action)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 02:43:45 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> [...]
>
> > > > > > +static irqreturn_t __handle_irq_event_percpu(unsigned int irq,
> > > > > > struct irqaction *action)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + /*
> > > > > > +* During suspend we must not call potentially unsafe irq
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 02:14:37 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 02:31:18PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:15:17 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 09:11:59AM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 10,
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:55:47 +0100
"Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 01:24:37 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:11:06 +
> > Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:53:39AM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > >
[...]
> > > > > +static irqreturn_t __handle_irq_event_percpu(unsigned int irq,
> > > > > struct irqaction *action)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * During suspend we must not call potentially unsafe irq
> > > > > handlers.
> > > > > + * See suspend_suspendable_actions.
>
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 01:24:37 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:11:06 +
> Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:53:39AM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > Hi Mark,
> > >
> > > On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:48:36 +
> > > Mark Rutland
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:11:06 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:53:39AM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:48:36 +
> > Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:52:01PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > >
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 02:31:18PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:15:17 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 09:11:59AM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:48:36PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > From
On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 08:48:36 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:52:01PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:36:28 +
> > Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Boris,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:33:38AM +, Boris
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:15:17 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 09:11:59AM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:48:36PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > From f390ccbb31f06efee49b4469943c8d85d963bfb5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Mark Rutland
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 01:38:59PM +, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 11/02/2015 at 12:36:56 +, Mark Rutland wrote :
> > > Actually, that was one of the requirements expressed by Thomas (Thomas,
> > > correct me if I'm wrong).
> > > The point was to force shared irq users to explicitly
On 11/02/2015 at 12:36:56 +, Mark Rutland wrote :
> > Actually, that was one of the requirements expressed by Thomas (Thomas,
> > correct me if I'm wrong).
> > The point was to force shared irq users to explicitly specify that they
> > are mixing !IRQF_NO_SUSPEND and IRQF_NO_SUSPEND because
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:24:37PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:11:06 +
> Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:53:39AM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > Hi Mark,
> > >
> > > On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:48:36 +
> > > Mark Rutland
Hi Mark,
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:11:06 +
Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:53:39AM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:48:36 +
> > Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:52:01PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > >
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 09:11:59AM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:48:36PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > From f390ccbb31f06efee49b4469943c8d85d963bfb5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Mark Rutland
> > Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:14:33 +
> > Subject: [PATCH] genirq:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:53:39AM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:48:36 +
> Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:52:01PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > Hi Mark,
> > >
> > > On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:36:28 +
> > > Mark Rutland
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:48:36PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> From f390ccbb31f06efee49b4469943c8d85d963bfb5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Mark Rutland
> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:14:33 +
> Subject: [PATCH] genirq: allow mixed IRQF_NO_SUSPEND requests
>
> In some cases a physical IRQ
Hi Mark,
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:48:36 +
Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:52:01PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:36:28 +
> > Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Boris,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:33:38AM +, Boris
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 17:42:22 +0100
Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net wrote:
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 05:15:15 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:20 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
[...]
So for the flag at request time approach to
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:15:15PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:20 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
[...]
So for the flag at request time approach to work, all the drivers
using
the interrupt would have to flag they're safe in
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:32:31 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:15:15PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:20 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
[...]
So for the flag at request time approach to work,
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:17:20 +0100
Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net wrote:
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 02:43:45 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
[...]
+static irqreturn_t __handle_irq_event_percpu(unsigned int irq,
struct irqaction *action)
+{
+ /*
+ *
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 17:13:13 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:42:22PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 05:15:15 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:20 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:20 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
[...]
So for the flag at request time approach to work, all the drivers
using
the interrupt would have to flag they're safe in that context.
Something like IRQF_I can share the line with a
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:42:22PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 05:15:15 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:20 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
[...]
So for the flag at request time approach to work, all the
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 05:15:15 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:20 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
[...]
So for the flag at request time approach to work, all the drivers
using
the interrupt would have to flag they're safe in
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:38:23PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:32:31 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:15:15PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:20 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:15:17 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 09:11:59AM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:48:36PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
From f390ccbb31f06efee49b4469943c8d85d963bfb5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark Rutland
On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 08:48:36 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:52:01PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
Hi Mark,
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:36:28 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
Hi Boris,
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:33:38AM +, Boris
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:07:48PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 02:14:37 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 02:31:18PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:15:17 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:11:06 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:53:39AM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
Hi Mark,
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:48:36 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:52:01PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:55:47 +0100
Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net wrote:
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 01:24:37 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
Hi Mark,
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:11:06 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:53:39AM +, Boris
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:17:20PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 02:43:45 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
[...]
+static irqreturn_t __handle_irq_event_percpu(unsigned int irq,
struct irqaction *action)
+{
+ /*
+ * During suspend
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 04:03:17 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:17:20 +0100
Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net wrote:
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 02:43:45 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
[...]
+static irqreturn_t __handle_irq_event_percpu(unsigned int
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 03:12:38 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:17:20PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 02:43:45 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
[...]
+static irqreturn_t __handle_irq_event_percpu(unsigned int irq,
struct
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 02:43:45 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
[...]
+static irqreturn_t __handle_irq_event_percpu(unsigned int irq,
struct irqaction *action)
+{
+ /*
+* During suspend we must not call potentially unsafe irq
handlers.
+*
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 01:24:37 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
Hi Mark,
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:11:06 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:53:39AM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
Hi Mark,
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:48:36 +
Mark Rutland
[...]
+static irqreturn_t __handle_irq_event_percpu(unsigned int irq,
struct irqaction *action)
+{
+ /*
+ * During suspend we must not call potentially unsafe irq
handlers.
+ * See suspend_suspendable_actions.
+ */
+ if
[...]
So for the flag at request time approach to work, all the drivers using
the interrupt would have to flag they're safe in that context.
Something like IRQF_I can share the line with a timer I guess? That
wouldn't
hurt and can be checked at request time even.
I
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 02:31:18PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:15:17 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 09:11:59AM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:48:36PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
From
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 02:14:37 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 02:31:18PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:15:17 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 09:11:59AM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:39:48PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 04:03:17 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:17:20 +0100
Rafael J. Wysocki r...@rjwysocki.net wrote:
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 02:43:45 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
[...]
Hi Mark,
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:48:36 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:52:01PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
Hi Mark,
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:36:28 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
Hi Boris,
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:48:36PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
From f390ccbb31f06efee49b4469943c8d85d963bfb5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:14:33 +
Subject: [PATCH] genirq: allow mixed IRQF_NO_SUSPEND requests
In some cases a
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:53:39AM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
Hi Mark,
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:48:36 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:52:01PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
Hi Mark,
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:36:28 +
Mark Rutland
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 09:11:59AM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:48:36PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
From f390ccbb31f06efee49b4469943c8d85d963bfb5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:14:33 +
Subject:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:24:37PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
Hi Mark,
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:11:06 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:53:39AM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
Hi Mark,
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:48:36 +
Mark Rutland
Hi Mark,
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:11:06 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:53:39AM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
Hi Mark,
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:48:36 +
Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:52:01PM +,
On 11/02/2015 at 12:36:56 +, Mark Rutland wrote :
Actually, that was one of the requirements expressed by Thomas (Thomas,
correct me if I'm wrong).
The point was to force shared irq users to explicitly specify that they
are mixing !IRQF_NO_SUSPEND and IRQF_NO_SUSPEND because they have
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 01:38:59PM +, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
On 11/02/2015 at 12:36:56 +, Mark Rutland wrote :
Actually, that was one of the requirements expressed by Thomas (Thomas,
correct me if I'm wrong).
The point was to force shared irq users to explicitly specify that
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
