[lkml]   [2015]   [Mar]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
Subject[PATCH] genirq: describe IRQF_COND_SUSPEND
With certain restrictions it is possible for a wakeup device to share
and 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 <>
Cc: Boris Brezillon <>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <>
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki <>
Documentation/power/suspend-and-interrupts.txt | 16 +++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

As promised previously, take IRQF_COND_SUSPEND into account in the

Rafael, does this look OK to you?


diff --git a/Documentation/power/suspend-and-interrupts.txt b/Documentation/power/suspend-and-interrupts.txt
index 50493c9..8afb29a 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.

 \ /
  Last update: 2015-03-04 21:21    [W:0.105 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site