[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <580F1992.2070602@free.fr>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:36:34 +0200
From: Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>
To: Sebastian Frias <sf84@...oste.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Disabling an interrupt in the handler locks the system up
On 25/10/2016 10:29, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> On 10/24/2016 06:55 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2016, Mason wrote:
>>
>>> For the record, setting the IRQ_DISABLE_UNLAZY flag for this device
>>> makes the system lock-up disappear.
>>
>> The way how lazy irq disabling works is:
>>
>> 1) Interrupt is marked disabled in software, but the hardware is not masked
>>
>> 2) If the interrupt fires befor the interrupt is reenabled, then it's
>> masked at the hardware level in the low level interrupt flow handler.
>
> Would you mind explaining what is the intention behind?
> Because it does not seem obvious why there isn't a direct map between
> "disable_irq*()" and "mask_irq()"
I had a similar, but slightly different question:
What is the difference between struct irq_chip's
* @irq_shutdown: shut down the interrupt (defaults to ->disable if NULL)
* @irq_disable: disable the interrupt
* @irq_mask: mask an interrupt source
(enable seems to default to unmask, but disable does not default to mask)
Regards.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists