Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 01/21] irqchip: tegra: Do not disable COP IRQ during
 suspend
To:     Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com>
Cc:     Sowjanya Komatineni <skomatineni@nvidia.com>,
        thierry.reding@gmail.com, jonathanh@nvidia.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
        jason@lakedaemon.net, marc.zyngier@arm.com,
        linus.walleij@linaro.org, stefan@agner.ch, mark.rutland@arm.com,
        pgaikwad@nvidia.com, sboyd@kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, jckuo@nvidia.com, josephl@nvidia.com,
        talho@nvidia.com, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mperttunen@nvidia.com,
        spatra@nvidia.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org
References: <1563738060-30213-1-git-send-email-skomatineni@nvidia.com>
 <1563738060-30213-2-git-send-email-skomatineni@nvidia.com>
 <f6582e43-168e-1b7e-9db8-3d263bc3ba0d@gmail.com>
 <20190725095502.GM12715@pdeschrijver-desktop.Nvidia.com>
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <dd01be5d-bab9-1329-c7ac-c3c893d49dd1@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 25 Jul 2019 13:05:13 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190725095502.GM12715@pdeschrijver-desktop.Nvidia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

25.07.2019 12:55, Peter De Schrijver пишет:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:54:51PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>
>> All Tegra SoCs support SC7, hence the 'supports_sc7' and the comment
>> doesn't sound correct to me. Something like 'firmware_sc7' should suit
>> better here.
>>
>>> +			writel_relaxed(~0ul, ictlr + ICTLR_COP_IER_CLR);
>>
>> Secondly, I'm also not sure why COP interrupts need to be disabled for
>> pre-T210 at all, since COP is unused. This looks to me like it was
>> cut-n-pasted from downstream kernel without a good reason and could be
>> simply removed.
> 
> I don't think we can rely on the fact that COP is unused. People can
> write their own code to run on COP.

1. Not upstream - doesn't matter.

2. That's not very good if something unknown is running on COP and then
kernel suddenly intervenes, don't you think so?