Re: [linux-pm] [RFC][PATCH][1/8] PM: Rework handling of interrupts during suspend-resume (rev. 5)
- From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 10:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
On Sat, 7 Mar 2009, Alan Stern wrote:
You didn't answer my question. Why bother to distinguish between
"wake-up" interrupts and non-"wake-up" interrupts?
In other words, why not simply abort the suspend if IRQ_PENDING is set
for _any_ interrupt during sysdev_suspend()?
.. because some drivers might not actually shut down the hardware until
they get to "suspend_late"? If even then, for that matter - a driver may
simply not care, knowing that the hardware will be powered off, and will
be re-initialized at resume.
The thinking that you have to shut your hardware down at "->suspend()"
time is a _disease_. There are literally classes of hardware out there
where that would be an outright _bug_, like for a PCI bridge device. For
many devices, "suspend()" has to be the phase where you shut down the
_external_ stuff (eg for a disk controller, it's when you'd flush and stop
your disks), but the controller itself may well be alive until later.
Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 01/13] [VOYAGER] x86: add {safe,hard}_smp_processor_id to smp_ops
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH 01/13] [VOYAGER] x86: add {safe,hard}_smp_processor_id to smp_ops
- Previous by thread: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC][PATCH][1/8] PM: Rework handling of interrupts during suspend-resume (rev. 5)
- Next by thread: Re: [linux-pm] [RFC][PATCH][1/8] PM: Rework handling of interrupts during suspend-resume (rev. 5)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
