[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20061210163545.488430000@mvista.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2006 08:35:45 -0800
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
To: mingo@...e.hu
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH -rt][RESEND] fix preempt hardirqs on OMAP
This should fix hardirq threading when the chained handler disables an interrupt
while setting IRQ_PENDING. Which happens on ARM OMAP. It also has the effect of
re-running the interrupt on IRQ_PENDING, which would normally be handled inside
the chained handler. Since this happens inside a thread the chained handler will
just wake up the thread multiple times, leaving the thread to actually rerun the
interrupt.
Signed-Off-By: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
---
kernel/irq/manage.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
1 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
Index: linux-2.6.19/kernel/irq/manage.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.19.orig/kernel/irq/manage.c
+++ linux-2.6.19/kernel/irq/manage.c
@@ -546,6 +546,7 @@ static void thread_simple_irq(irq_desc_t
unsigned int irq = desc - irq_desc;
irqreturn_t action_ret;
+restart:
if (action && !desc->depth) {
spin_unlock(&desc->lock);
action_ret = handle_IRQ_event(irq, action);
@@ -555,6 +556,19 @@ static void thread_simple_irq(irq_desc_t
if (!noirqdebug)
note_interrupt(irq, desc, action_ret);
}
+
+ /*
+ * Some boards will disable an interrupt when it
+ * sets IRQ_PENDING . So we have to remove the flag
+ * and re-enable to handle it.
+ */
+ if (desc->status & IRQ_PENDING) {
+ desc->status &= ~IRQ_PENDING;
+ if (desc->chip)
+ desc->chip->enable(irq);
+ goto restart;
+ }
+
desc->status &= ~IRQ_INPROGRESS;
}
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists