Hi Laxman, Am Mittwoch, 20. November 2013, 10:54:10 schrieb Laxman Dewangan: > > I may be blind, but where get the early-irqs resumed in the error > > path of dpm_suspend_noirq? > > > > When a suspend_noirq callback returns an error, dpm_resume_noirq gets > > called, which only calls resume_device_irqs while the > > suspend_device_irqs call in dpm_suspend_noirq suspends all irqs. So it > > does not seem that the early-irqs get resumed at all in this case. > > I also faced same issue in our suspend failure path and posted fix > sometime ago as > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/8/13/373 > > It is still under review.
>From the thread on lkml.org it looks like it got no reaction at all - maybe was just overlooked. So maybe it would be good to re-send it. As it is not visible on lkml.org, did you also include [email protected], as the issue started in 2011? > You can try this patch if it resolve the issue. Your patch looks a lot more sophisticated than my current band-aid fix :-) by using the fact that irqs won't get resumed twice on their own. So if you repost your patch you could add an Acked-by: Heiko Stuebner <[email protected]> Heiko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
