Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 28 Jul 2014 08:49:13 +0200 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] irq: Rework IRQF_NO_SUSPENDED |
| |
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 01:49:17PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > One more idea, on top of the prototype patch that I posted > (https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4625921/). > > The problem with enable_irq_wake() is that it only takes one argument, so > if that's a shared interrupt, we can't really say which irqaction is supposed > to handle wakeup interrupts should they occur.
Right.
> To address this we can introduce enable_device_irq_wake() that will take > an additional dev_id argument (that must be the one passed to request_irq() or > the operation will fail) that can be used to identify the irqaction for > handling the wakeup interrupts. It can work by setting IRQF_NO_SUSPEND > for the irqaction in question and doing the rest along the lines of > irq_set_irq_wake(irq, 1). disable_device_irq_wake() will then clear > IRQF_NO_SUSPEND (it also has to be passed the dev_id argument). > > If we have that, the guys who need to set up device interrupts (ie. interrupts > normally used for signaling input events etc) for system wakeup will need to > use enable_device_irq_wake() and that should just work.
So in the patch I posted I described why NO_SUSPEND is useful, I still have to hear a solid reason for why we also need enable_irq_wake()? What does it do that cannot be achieved with NO_SUSPEND?
I realize its dynamic, but that's crap, at device registration time it pretty much already knows if its a wakeup source or not, right?
| |