Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Mar 2015 10:57:29 +0000 | From | Mark Rutland <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] watchdog: at91sam9: request the irq with IRQF_NO_SUSPEND |
| |
[...]
> > > err = request_irq(wdt->irq, wdt_interrupt, > > > - IRQF_SHARED | IRQF_IRQPOLL, > > > + IRQF_SHARED | IRQF_IRQPOLL | > > > + IRQF_NO_SUSPEND, > > > > I'm a little confused by this. What happens if the watchdog fires when > > we're actually in the suspended state (when IRQF_NO_SUSPEND interrupts > > aren't guaranteed to be delivered). > > Why wouldn't they be delivered? > > If that's suspend-to-idle, we'll handle them normally. If that's full suspend, > they may not be handled at the last stage (when we run on one CPU with interrupts > off), but that was the case before the wakeup interrupts rework already and I'd > expect it to be taken into account somehow in the existing code (or if it isn't > taken into account, we have a bug, but it is not related to this series).
There's no enable_irq_wake(wdt->irq), and I was under the impression this is for full suspend.
I agree that if problematic, it's an existing bug. Given Boris's comments in the other thread this may just a minor semantic issue w.r.t. IRQF_NO_SUSPEND vs IRQF_COND_SUSPEND.
Thanks, Mark.
| |