netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch] fix suspend/resume on b44

To: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [patch] fix suspend/resume on b44
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:20:54 +0200
Cc: jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20050920162635.565e4b46.akpm@xxxxxxxx>
References: <20050920132811.GA4563@xxxxxxxxxx> <20050920162635.565e4b46.akpm@xxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Hi!

> > diff --git a/drivers/net/b44.c b/drivers/net/b44.c
> > --- a/drivers/net/b44.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/b44.c
> > @@ -1930,6 +1930,8 @@ static int b44_suspend(struct pci_dev *p
> >     b44_free_rings(bp);
> >  
> >     spin_unlock_irq(&bp->lock);
> > +
> > +   free_irq(dev->irq, dev);
> >     pci_disable_device(pdev);
> >     return 0;
> >  }
> > @@ -1946,6 +1948,9 @@ static int b44_resume(struct pci_dev *pd
> >     if (!netif_running(dev))
> >             return 0;
> >  
> > +   if (request_irq(dev->irq, b44_interrupt, SA_SHIRQ, dev->name, dev))
> > +           printk(KERN_ERR PFX "%s: request_irq failed\n", dev->name);
> > +
> >     spin_lock_irq(&bp->lock);
> >  
> >     b44_init_rings(bp);
> > 
> 
> Why does it hang on suspend/resume?
> 
> This came up a while back and iirc we decided that adding free_irq() to
> every ->suspend() handler in the world was the wrong thing to do.  Do I
> misremember?

No, you remember right, but b44 needed that free_irq/request_irq even
because those ACPI changes. I'm not exactly sure why, something went
very wrong otherwise.

                                                                Pavel
-- 
Boycott Kodak -- for their patent abuse against Java.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>