On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 21:19 +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 01:51:47PM +0530, Chew, Chiau Ee wrote:
> > As mentioned by Andy, we are using *_noirq verion of suspend/resume PM > > callback whereby the callbacks would be executed after IRQ handlers have > > been > > disabled. If using SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS, it would be the normal > > suspend/resume PM callback. Looking at the Desginware DMAC platform code > > (drivers/dma/dw/platform.c), it is using the *_noirq suspend/resume PM > > callback. Is it advisable to use the normal suspend/resume PM callback > > instead > > of *_noirq suspend/PM callback? > > i dont see a reason why we need the noirq versions Okay. I imagine the following use case. For example we have compiled in DMA driver (dw_dmac) along with, for example, SPI driver. System was scheduled to go sleep. An order of calling IIUC might be DMA first, then SPI (since they are not in parent / child relations). What was happened when SPI would like to do a DMA transfer and DMA is going to sleep? I'm trying to understand if this is a case. > > > How about SET_SYSTEM_SLEEP_PM_OPS instead? > > > > So, we are using *_noirq versions of the functions here. What happened when > > we switch to normal ones? Any side effects? -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> Intel Finland Oy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
