Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-748-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 13:24:24 +0300
From: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@gmail.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>, 
	Luo Jiaxing <luojiaxing@huawei.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, 
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>, Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>, 
	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>, 
	"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 
	Linuxarm <linuxarm@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] gpio: dwapb: mask/unmask IRQ when disable/enable it
Message-ID: <cbgdeksaulqu65nbnz7l4wpuwensllkdlyi5babhpngclze4df@zxetbohgpfvg>
References: <1606728979-44259-1-git-send-email-luojiaxing@huawei.com>
 <CACRpkdYHAecm3ygaze80SsXzNMYSA9p+p6JY4BKO2D+vArb-WA@mail.gmail.com>
 <87fs03opju.ffs@tglx>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87fs03opju.ffs@tglx>

Hi Thomas

On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 09:09:09AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 05 2020 at 22:58, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > Sorry for top posting but I need the help of the irqchip maintainer
> > Marc Z to hash this out.
> >
> > The mask/unmask/disable/enable semantics is something that
> > you need to work with every day to understand right.
> 
> The patch is correct.
> 
> The irq_enable() callback is required to be a superset of
> irq_unmask(). I.e. the core code expects it to do:
> 
>   1) Some preparatory work to enable the interrupt line
> 
>   2) Unmask the interrupt, which is why the masked state is cleared
>      by the core after invoking the irq_enable() callback.
> 
> #2 is pretty obvious because if an interrupt chip does not implement the
> irq_enable() callback the core defaults to irq_unmask()
> 
> Correspondingly the core expects from the irq_disable() callback:
> 
>    1) To mask the interrupt
> 
>    2) To do some extra work to disable the interrupt line
> 
> Same reasoning as above vs. #1 as the core fallback is to invoke the
> irq_unmask() callback when the irq_disable() callback is not
> implemented.

Just curious. Wouldn't that be more correct/portable for the core to
call both callbacks when it's required and if both are provided? So
the supersetness requirement would be no longer applied to the
IRQ enable/disable callbacks implementation thus avoiding the code
duplications in the low-level drivers.

-Serge(y)

> 
> Thanks,
> 
>         tglx
>