[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55CC62C6.20304@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:26:30 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"tony@...mide.com" <tony@...mide.com>
CC: "linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"nsekhar@...com" <nsekhar@...com>,
"jason@...edaemon.net" <jason@...edaemon.net>,
"balbi@...com" <balbi@...com>,
"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] genirq: fix irq_chip_retrigger_hierarchy
[adding Jiang to the cc list]
On 12/08/15 18:45, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> Now irq_chip_retrigger_hierarchy() returns -ENOSYS if it
> was not able to find at least one .irq_retrigger() callback
> implemented in IRQ domain hierarchy. As result, IRQ
> re-triggering is not working now on ARM (TI OMAP) where
> ARM GIC is not implemented this callback.
> The .irq_retrigger() is optional (see check_irq_resend())
> and there are no reasons to fail if it was not found, hence
> lets return 0 in this case.
>
> In case of TI OMAP DRA7 the following IRQ hierarchy is defined:
> ARM GIC <- OMAP wakeupgen <- TI CBAR
>
> Failure is reproduced during resume from suspend to RAM:
> - wakeup by IRQx
> - suspend_enter
> + arch_suspend_enable_irqs
> + handle_fasteoi_irq
> + irq_may_run
> + irq_pm_check_wakeup
> + irq_disable(IRQx)
> + dpm_resume_noirq()
> + resume_device_irqs
> + resume_irqs
> + resume_irq
> + __enable_irq <== IRQx is not re-triggered
>
> Fixes: 85f08c17de26 ('genirq: Introduce helper functions...')
> Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
> ---
> kernel/irq/chip.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/irq/chip.c b/kernel/irq/chip.c
> index 27f4332..6de638b 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq/chip.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq/chip.c
> @@ -997,7 +997,7 @@ int irq_chip_retrigger_hierarchy(struct irq_data *data)
> if (data->chip && data->chip->irq_retrigger)
> return data->chip->irq_retrigger(data);
>
> - return -ENOSYS;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> /**
>
I think this makes sense. Not having an irq_retrigger or having an
irq_retrigger that returns zero are the same thing.
Actually, we don't even distinguish between a retrigger that
successfully poked the HW, and a retrigger that returned an error. Both
are considered to not to require a SW retrigger... maybe we should fix
that too. Jiang, Thomas?
Anyway, for this patch:
Reviewed-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
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