From: Mark Rutland Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 20:00:40 +0000 (+0000) Subject: genirq / PM: describe IRQF_COND_SUSPEND X-Git-Url: https://git.stricted.de/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=7438b633a6b073d66a3fa3678ec0dd5928caa4af;p=GitHub%2Fmoto-9609%2Fandroid_kernel_motorola_exynos9610.git genirq / PM: describe IRQF_COND_SUSPEND With certain restrictions it is possible for a wakeup device to share an IRQ with an IRQF_NO_SUSPEND user, and the warnings introduced by commit cab303be91dc47942bc25de33dc1140123540800 are spurious. The new IRQF_COND_SUSPEND flag allows drivers to tell the core when these restrictions are met, allowing spurious warnings to be silenced. This patch documents how IRQF_COND_SUSPEND is expected to be used, updating some of the text now made invalid by its addition. Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki --- diff --git a/Documentation/power/suspend-and-interrupts.txt b/Documentation/power/suspend-and-interrupts.txt index 50493c9284b4..8afb29a8604a 100644 --- a/Documentation/power/suspend-and-interrupts.txt +++ b/Documentation/power/suspend-and-interrupts.txt @@ -112,8 +112,9 @@ any special interrupt handling logic for it to work. IRQF_NO_SUSPEND and enable_irq_wake() ------------------------------------- -There are no valid reasons to use both enable_irq_wake() and the IRQF_NO_SUSPEND -flag on the same IRQ. +There are very few valid reasons to use both enable_irq_wake() and the +IRQF_NO_SUSPEND flag on the same IRQ, and it is never valid to use both for the +same device. First of all, if the IRQ is not shared, the rules for handling IRQF_NO_SUSPEND interrupts (interrupt handlers are invoked after suspend_device_irqs()) are @@ -122,4 +123,13 @@ handlers are not invoked after suspend_device_irqs()). Second, both enable_irq_wake() and IRQF_NO_SUSPEND apply to entire IRQs and not to individual interrupt handlers, so sharing an IRQ between a system wakeup -interrupt source and an IRQF_NO_SUSPEND interrupt source does not make sense. +interrupt source and an IRQF_NO_SUSPEND interrupt source does not generally +make sense. + +In rare cases an IRQ can be shared between a wakeup device driver and an +IRQF_NO_SUSPEND user. In order for this to be safe, the wakeup device driver +must be able to discern spurious IRQs from genuine wakeup events (signalling +the latter to the core with pm_system_wakeup()), must use enable_irq_wake() to +ensure that the IRQ will function as a wakeup source, and must request the IRQ +with IRQF_COND_SUSPEND to tell the core that it meets these requirements. If +these requirements are not met, it is not valid to use IRQF_COND_SUSPEND.