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;
Message-ID: <5d85511e.1c69fb81.98f62.dae0@mx.google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <20190911161557.GB30053@codeaurora.org>
References: <20190829181203.2660-1-ilina@codeaurora.org> <20190829181203.2660-3-ilina@codeaurora.org> <5d71aad9.1c69fb81.f469e.262f@mx.google.com> <20190911161557.GB30053@codeaurora.org>
Cc:     evgreen@chromium.org, linus.walleij@linaro.org,
        marc.zyngier@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org,
        mkshah@codeaurora.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
        rnayak@codeaurora.org
To:     Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org>
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 02/14] drivers: irqchip: pdc: Do not toggle IRQ_ENABLE during mask/unmask
User-Agent: alot/0.8.1
Date:   Fri, 20 Sep 2019 15:22:21 -0700
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Quoting Lina Iyer (2019-09-11 09:15:57)
> On Thu, Sep 05 2019 at 18:39 -0600, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >Quoting Lina Iyer (2019-08-29 11:11:51)
> >> When an interrupt is to be serviced, the convention is to mask the
> >> interrupt at the chip and unmask after servicing the interrupt. Enabli=
ng
> >> and disabling the interrupt at the PDC irqchip causes an interrupt sto=
rm
> >> due to the way dual edge interrupts are handled in hardware.
> >>
> >> Skip configuring the PDC when the IRQ is masked and unmasked, instead
> >> use the irq_enable/irq_disable callbacks to toggle the IRQ_ENABLE
> >> register at the PDC. The PDC's IRQ_ENABLE register is only used during
> >> the monitoring mode when the system is asleep and is not needed for
> >> active mode detection.
> >
> >I think this is saying that we want to always let the line be sent
> >through the PDC to the parent irqchip, in this case GIC, so that we
> >don't get an interrupt storm for dual edge interrupts? Why does dual
> >edge interrupts cause a problem?
> >
> I am not sure about the hardware details, but the PDC designers did not
> expect enable and disable to be called whenever the interrupt is
> handled. This specially becomes a problem for dual edge interrupts which
> seems to generate a interrupt storm when enabled/disabled while handling
> the interrupt.
>=20

Ok. I just wanted to confirm that masking "doesn't matter" to the PDC
because it assumes the irqchip closer to the CPU will be able to mask it
anyway. Is that right?