lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] firewire: Fix ohci free_irq() warning
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, Stefan Richter wrote:

> On Feb 01 Mark Einon wrote:
> > On 1 February 2013 21:09, Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com> wrote:
> > >>>> On Jan 29 Alan Stern wrote:
> > >>>>> Why does the pci_suspend routine call free_irq() at all? As far as I
> > >>>>> know, it's not supposed to do that. Won't the device continue to use
> > >>>>> the same IRQ after it is resumed?
>
> As far as I can tell, it happened to be done that way as a side effect of
> how the probe() and resume() methods share code. It has remained like
> this since the initial implementation:
> http://git.kernel.org/linus/2aef469a35a2

At one point, quite a few years ago, Linus complained about drivers the
release IRQs during suspend only to reacquire them during resume. A
little refactoring should be able to separate out resource
acquisition/release (done only during probe and remove) from activation
and shutdown (also done during resume and suspend).

> Still, at this point I would like to learn whether .suspend() followed
> by .remove() is a valid order of sequence which drivers must support
> before I prepare myself to get comfortable with a refactoring of
> firewire-ohci's .probe()/.resume()/suspend()/remove(). Obviously, so far
> my assumption was that a successful .suspend() can only ever be followed
> by .resume().

It depends on the subsystem. Some subsystems do have suspend -> remove
transitions and others don't. In general, it's a good idea for drivers
to be prepared for removal while the system is asleep. Presumably any
hot-unpluggable bus (which includes most of the important buses these
days) would have to support it.

Alan Stern



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-02 16:41    [W:0.071 / U:1.452 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site