[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140406185818.3aaca03d@alan.etchedpixels.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 18:58:18 +0100
From: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: "Westerberg, Mika" <mika.westerberg@...el.com>
Cc: "Du, Wenkai" <wenkai.du@...el.com>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c-designware: Mask interrupts during i2c controller
enable
On Sat, 5 Apr 2014 09:13:16 +0300
"Westerberg, Mika" <mika.westerberg@...el.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 12:54:33AM +0300, Du, Wenkai wrote:
> > >Interrupt masking is done already after each transaction.
> >
> > At end of transfer, the code uses __i2c_dw_enable(dev, false) to disable
> > adapter. This function doesn't mask interrupts. There is another function
> > i2c_dw_disable that masks and clears interrupts. This could be used, but
> > that means we need to fix in 2 places:
>
> Please check i2c_dw_isr() and tell me in which code path interrupts are not
> getting masked. Or am I missing something fundamental here?
>
> In case of abort, we mask interrupts. Also whenever the transaction
> completes we mask interrupts (in i2c_dw_xfer_msg()).
Well actually you mask the IRQ at some point after the function returns
if the bus allows the write to be posted. As i2c_dw_isr can then exit the
IRQ handler before the write completes I suspect you have a race ?
Alan
--
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