MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJKOXPd+ir1+036jmN+Pd6WWvTcTES2xV9LLsh-W=DYvc2LoEQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20170629213334.375848050@linutronix.de> <20170629214343.882576048@linutronix.de>
 <CA+Ln22GyEDZidAWkMonjLYF0etxNjZ0btwYkQ5raAPsnk1bJFg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJKOXPd+ir1+036jmN+Pd6WWvTcTES2xV9LLsh-W=DYvc2LoEQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 15:20:41 +0900
Message-ID: <CA+Ln22Esc-1P6bcMeXuTVztiyFMXsOV1O0V=tZOj4YEwLZJSuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/5] pinctrl: samsung: Remove bogus irq_[un]mask from
 resource management
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org,
        Julia Cartwright <julia@ni.com>,
        "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        John Keeping <john@metanate.com>,
        Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>, Kukjin Kim <kgene@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org" 
        <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1520
Lines: 40

2017-06-30 15:02 GMT+09:00 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Thomas,
>>
>> 2017-06-30 6:33 GMT+09:00 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>:
>>> 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 <tomasz.figa@gmail.com>
>>
>> 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