[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E7A252F.2000402@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:55:59 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
To: "Cousson, Benoit" <b-cousson@...com>
CC: "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org"
<devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"grant.likely@...retlab.ca" <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
"marc.zyngier@....com" <marc.zyngier@....com>,
"thomas.abraham@...aro.org" <thomas.abraham@...aro.org>,
"jamie@...ieiles.com" <jamie@...ieiles.com>,
"shawn.guo@...aro.org" <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
"dave.martin@...aro.org" <dave.martin@...aro.org>,
"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Rob Herring <rob.herring@...xeda.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: gic: add OF based initialization
Benoit,
On 09/21/2011 12:15 PM, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> I'm testing that series with OMAP4 but have some issues for the moment :-(
>
> [ 0.000000] WARNING: at kernel/irq/irqdomain.c:34 gic_of_init+0x10c/0x180()
> [ 0.000000] error: irq_desc already assigned to a domain
> [ 0.000000] Modules linked in:
> [ 0.000000] [<c001b284>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xf0) from [<c0051c34>] (warn_slowpath_common+0x4c/0x64)
> [ 0.000000] [<c0051c34>] (warn_slowpath_common+0x4c/0x64) from [<c0051ce0>] (warn_slowpath_fmt+0x30/0x40)
> [ 0.000000] [<c0051ce0>] (warn_slowpath_fmt+0x30/0x40) from [<c05f6874>] (gic_of_init+0x10c/0x180)
> [ 0.000000] [<c05f6874>] (gic_of_init+0x10c/0x180) from [<c05fa2e0>] (omap_gic_of_init+0x8/0x28)
> [ 0.000000] [<c05fa2e0>] (omap_gic_of_init+0x8/0x28) from [<c0616b44>] (of_irq_init+0x148/0x28c)
> [ 0.000000] [<c0616b44>] (of_irq_init+0x148/0x28c) from [<c05f3074>] (init_IRQ+0x14/0x1c)
> [ 0.000000] [<c05f3074>] (init_IRQ+0x14/0x1c) from [<c05f0650>] (start_kernel+0x184/0x2fc)
> [ 0.000000] [<c05f0650>] (start_kernel+0x184/0x2fc) from [<80008040>] (0x80008040)
>
> I'm not super familiar with all the irq stuff but I'm wondering if there is not something wrong with the test that print that message:
>
> void irq_domain_add(struct irq_domain *domain)
> {
> struct irq_data *d;
> int hwirq;
>
> /*
> * This assumes that the irq_domain owner has already allocated
> * the irq_descs. This block will be removed when support for dynamic
> * allocation of irq_descs is added to irq_domain.
> */
> for (hwirq = 0; hwirq < domain->nr_irq; hwirq++) {
> d = irq_get_irq_data(irq_domain_to_irq(domain, hwirq));
> if (d || d->domain) {
> /* things are broken; just report, don't clean up */
> WARN(1, "error: irq_desc already assigned to a domain");
> return;
> }
> [...]
>
> Is the (d || d->domain) correct? Shouldn't it be (d && d->domain)?
>
> But since that used to work properly, I have some doubt. Moreover the driver will not even get the proper interrupt later...
>
> Do you have any clue?
I fixed that in the prior series and tglx picked it up, so I did not
repost. It should hit mainline for 3.1, but I haven't verified if it is
in yet. Sorry for the confusion, I should have mentioned that.
Rob
--
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