Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.36 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.36;
Date:   Tue, 19 Sep 2023 17:49:21 +0100
Message-ID: <87a5ti3y7i.wl-maz@kernel.org>
From:   Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To:     Biju Das <biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Prabhakar Mahadev Lad <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>,
        Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@bp.renesas.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>,
        Biju Das <biju.das.au@gmail.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org" 
        <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] irqchip: renesas-rzg2l: Fix irq storm with edge trigger detection for TINT
In-Reply-To: <OS0PR01MB59228AD24951D49F3E639BFF86FAA@OS0PR01MB5922.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20230918122411.237635-1-biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com>
        <20230918122411.237635-4-biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com>
        <86y1h2cjpb.wl-maz@kernel.org>
        <OS0PR01MB5922748F489467BE2539AA1886FAA@OS0PR01MB5922.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
        <87cyye3zly.wl-maz@kernel.org>
        <OS0PR01MB59228AD24951D49F3E639BFF86FAA@OS0PR01MB5922.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue)
 FLIM-LB/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL-LB/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/28.2
 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 19 Sep 2023 17:32:05 +0100,
Biju Das <biju.das.jz@bp.renesas.com> wrote:

[...]

> > So you mean that you *already* lose interrupts across a disable followed by
> > an enable? I'm slightly puzzled...
> 
> There is no interrupt lost at all. 
> 
> Currently this patch addresses 2 issues.
> 
> Scenario 1: Extra interrupt when we select TINT source on enable_irq()
> 
> Getting an extra interrupt, when client drivers calls enable_irq()
> during probe()/resume(). In this case, the irq handler on the Client
> driver just clear the interrupt status bit.
>
> Issue 2: IRQ storm when we select TINT source on enable_irq()
> 
> Here as well, we are getting an extra interrupt, when client drivers
> calls enable_irq() during probe() and this Interrupts getting
> generated infinitely, when the client driver calls disable_irq() in
> irq handler and in in work queue calling enable_irq().

How do you know this is a spurious interrupt? For all you can tell,
you are just consuming an edge. I absolutely don't buy this
workaround, because you have no context that allows you to
discriminate between a real spurious interrupt and a normal interrupt
that lands while the interrupt line was masked.

> Currently we are not loosing interrupts, but we are getting additional
> Interrupt(phantom) which is causing the issue.

If you get an interrupt at probe time in the endpoint driver, that's
probably because the device is not in a quiescent state when the
interrupt is requested. And it is probably this that needs addressing.

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.