[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5450B309.4040607@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 09:27:37 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: Yingjoe Chen <yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com>,
Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch Part2 v3 01/24] irqdomain: Introduce new interfaces to
support hierarchy irqdomains
On 28/10/14 20:23, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2014, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 28/10/14 19:37, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> So while we are at it:
>>>
>>>> + if (irq_domain_is_hierarchy(domain)) {
>>>> + if (domain->ops->xlate) {
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * If we've already configured this interrupt,
>>>> + * don't do it again, or hell will break loose.
>>>> + */
>>>> + virq = irq_find_mapping(domain, hwirq);
>>>> + if (virq)
>>>> + return virq;
>>>
>>> I can understand that it is an issue if the mapping exists already,
>>> but I have to ask WHY is it correct behaviour to call into that code
>>> for an existing mapping.
>>
>> As I have originally looked at this, I'll answer the question:
>>
>> The generic DT code parses the whole tree, and generates platform
>> devices as it goes. As part of the platform device creation, it
>> populates the IRQ resources, which translates into calling into
>> irq_create_of_mapping(). You could argue that this behaviour is crazy,
>> and I wouldn't disagree.
>
> Mooo.
Quite.
>> See http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg53164.html for more gory
>> details.
>>
>>> And why would this check only apply if domain->ops->xlate is set?
>>> irq_create_mapping() does it unconditionally.
>>
>> My original code used the xlate callback to parse the opaque irq_data,
>> computing hwirq, and I suspect this is a leftover of it. The above code
>> seems to pull hwirq out of thin air, which is probably not the intended
>> behaviour. Joe?
>
> No. Here is the full patch from Joe:
>
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-October/296543.html
>
> hwirq gets either set from hwirq = irq_data->args[0] or from the xlate
> call.
Ah, that makes a lot more sense.
> But my question still stands:
>
> Why would this check only apply if domain->ops->xlate is set?
> irq_create_mapping() does it unconditionally.
I don't think we should consider xlate at all. We already resolved hwirq
(either directly or through a xlate call), and the check should always
be performed (otherwise we're likely to fall into the same trap again).
Looks like a bug to me.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
--
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