The irq chip callbacks irq_request/release_resources() have absolutely no
business with masking and unmasking the irq.
The core code unmasks the interrupt after complete setup and masks it
before invoking irq_release_resources().
The unmask is actually harmful as it happens before the interrupt is
completely initialized in __setup_irq().
Remove it.
Fixes: f6a8249f9e55 ("pinctrl: exynos: Lock GPIOs as interrupts when used as EINTs")
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
Cc: Tomasz Figa <[email protected]>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki <[email protected]>
Cc: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
Cc: Kukjin Kim <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
---
drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos.c | 4 ----
1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos.c
@@ -205,8 +205,6 @@ static int exynos_irq_request_resources(
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&bank->slock, flags);
- exynos_irq_unmask(irqd);
-
return 0;
}
@@ -226,8 +224,6 @@ static void exynos_irq_release_resources
shift = irqd->hwirq * bank_type->fld_width[PINCFG_TYPE_FUNC];
mask = (1 << bank_type->fld_width[PINCFG_TYPE_FUNC]) - 1;
- exynos_irq_mask(irqd);
-
spin_lock_irqsave(&bank->slock, flags);
con = readl(bank->eint_base + reg_con);
Hi Thomas,
2017-06-30 6:33 GMT+09:00 Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>:
> The irq chip callbacks irq_request/release_resources() have absolutely no
> business with masking and unmasking the irq.
>
> The core code unmasks the interrupt after complete setup and masks it
> before invoking irq_release_resources().
>
> The unmask is actually harmful as it happens before the interrupt is
> completely initialized in __setup_irq().
>
> Remove it.
Good catch, thanks! (Note that the original patch of mine [1] did that
in .irq_startup()/.irq_shutdown(), which was for some reason changed
later, but I don't remember the exact story.)
[1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4466431/
Acked-by: Tomasz Figa <[email protected]>
Sylwester, Krzysztof, would you be able to do some basic test?
Best regards,
Tomasz
>
> Fixes: f6a8249f9e55 ("pinctrl: exynos: Lock GPIOs as interrupts when used as EINTs")
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> Cc: Tomasz Figa <[email protected]>
> Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki <[email protected]>
> Cc: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
> Cc: Kukjin Kim <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> ---
> drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos.c | 4 ----
> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/samsung/pinctrl-exynos.c
> @@ -205,8 +205,6 @@ static int exynos_irq_request_resources(
>
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&bank->slock, flags);
>
> - exynos_irq_unmask(irqd);
> -
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -226,8 +224,6 @@ static void exynos_irq_release_resources
> shift = irqd->hwirq * bank_type->fld_width[PINCFG_TYPE_FUNC];
> mask = (1 << bank_type->fld_width[PINCFG_TYPE_FUNC]) - 1;
>
> - exynos_irq_mask(irqd);
> -
> spin_lock_irqsave(&bank->slock, flags);
>
> con = readl(bank->eint_base + reg_con);
>
>
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Tomasz Figa <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
> 2017-06-30 6:33 GMT+09:00 Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>:
>> The irq chip callbacks irq_request/release_resources() have absolutely no
>> business with masking and unmasking the irq.
>>
>> The core code unmasks the interrupt after complete setup and masks it
>> before invoking irq_release_resources().
>>
>> The unmask is actually harmful as it happens before the interrupt is
>> completely initialized in __setup_irq().
>>
>> Remove it.
>
> Good catch, thanks! (Note that the original patch of mine [1] did that
> in .irq_startup()/.irq_shutdown(), which was for some reason changed
> later, but I don't remember the exact story.)
>
> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4466431/
>
> Acked-by: Tomasz Figa <[email protected]>
>
> Sylwester, Krzysztof, would you be able to do some basic test?
I suppose this was not tested so yes - I have platforms do this. I
understand that checking any non-shared GPIO interrupt should be
sufficient to test, right?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
2017-06-30 15:02 GMT+09:00 Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Tomasz Figa <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> 2017-06-30 6:33 GMT+09:00 Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>:
>>> The irq chip callbacks irq_request/release_resources() have absolutely no
>>> business with masking and unmasking the irq.
>>>
>>> The core code unmasks the interrupt after complete setup and masks it
>>> before invoking irq_release_resources().
>>>
>>> The unmask is actually harmful as it happens before the interrupt is
>>> completely initialized in __setup_irq().
>>>
>>> Remove it.
>>
>> Good catch, thanks! (Note that the original patch of mine [1] did that
>> in .irq_startup()/.irq_shutdown(), which was for some reason changed
>> later, but I don't remember the exact story.)
>>
>> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4466431/
>>
>> Acked-by: Tomasz Figa <[email protected]>
>>
>> Sylwester, Krzysztof, would you be able to do some basic test?
>
> I suppose this was not tested so yes - I have platforms do this. I
> understand that checking any non-shared GPIO interrupt should be
> sufficient to test, right?
I think any interrupt from the Exynos pin controller should work, even
shared one. I'd expect irq_request_resources() to be invoked for
shared interrupts as well, otherwise we have a problem... (I quickly
looked through kernel/irq/manage.c and it seems to be invoked for the
first __setup_irq() call even for shared interrupts.)
Thanks.
Best regards,
Tomasz
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> wrote:
> The irq chip callbacks irq_request/release_resources() have absolutely no
> business with masking and unmasking the irq.
>
> The core code unmasks the interrupt after complete setup and masks it
> before invoking irq_release_resources().
>
> The unmask is actually harmful as it happens before the interrupt is
> completely initialized in __setup_irq().
>
> Remove it.
>
> Fixes: f6a8249f9e55 ("pinctrl: exynos: Lock GPIOs as interrupts when used as EINTs")
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> Cc: Tomasz Figa <[email protected]>
> Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki <[email protected]>
> Cc: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
> Cc: Kukjin Kim <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
Does this patch have a dependency on the rest of the series or should
I just apply it as-is?
Yours,
Linus Walleij
On Fri, 30 Jun 2017, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The irq chip callbacks irq_request/release_resources() have absolutely no
> > business with masking and unmasking the irq.
> >
> > The core code unmasks the interrupt after complete setup and masks it
> > before invoking irq_release_resources().
> >
> > The unmask is actually harmful as it happens before the interrupt is
> > completely initialized in __setup_irq().
> >
> > Remove it.
> >
> > Fixes: f6a8249f9e55 ("pinctrl: exynos: Lock GPIOs as interrupts when used as EINTs")
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Tomasz Figa <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Kukjin Kim <[email protected]>
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected]
>
> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
>
> Does this patch have a dependency on the rest of the series or should
> I just apply it as-is?
Has no dependecies at all.
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> wrote:
> The irq chip callbacks irq_request/release_resources() have absolutely no
> business with masking and unmasking the irq.
>
> The core code unmasks the interrupt after complete setup and masks it
> before invoking irq_release_resources().
>
> The unmask is actually harmful as it happens before the interrupt is
> completely initialized in __setup_irq().
>
> Remove it.
>
> Fixes: f6a8249f9e55 ("pinctrl: exynos: Lock GPIOs as interrupts when used as EINTs")
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> Cc: Tomasz Figa <[email protected]>
> Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki <[email protected]>
> Cc: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
> Cc: Kukjin Kim <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
Patch applied directly since it has no deps and fixes queued stuff for v4.13.
I guess Krysztof will make sure it doesn't break anything.
Yours,
Linus Walleij
On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 03:53:18PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > The irq chip callbacks irq_request/release_resources() have absolutely no
> > business with masking and unmasking the irq.
> >
> > The core code unmasks the interrupt after complete setup and masks it
> > before invoking irq_release_resources().
> >
> > The unmask is actually harmful as it happens before the interrupt is
> > completely initialized in __setup_irq().
> >
> > Remove it.
> >
> > Fixes: f6a8249f9e55 ("pinctrl: exynos: Lock GPIOs as interrupts when used as EINTs")
> > Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Tomasz Figa <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
> > Cc: Kukjin Kim <[email protected]>
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected]
> > Cc: [email protected]
>
> Patch applied directly since it has no deps and fixes queued stuff for v4.13.
> I guess Krysztof will make sure it doesn't break anything.
Everything seems to work fine with the patchset.
Best regards,
Krzysztof