lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 19:32:52 +0800 From: Phil Reid <preid@...ctromag.com.au> To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> Cc: thloh@...era.com, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@...il.com>, "linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] gpio: altera: Use handle_level_irq when configured as a level_high On 17/02/2017 17:23, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Phil Reid <preid@...ctromag.com.au> wrote: >> When a threaded irq handler is chained attached to one of the gpio >> pins when configure for level irq the altera_gpio_irq_leveL_high_handler >> does not mask the interrupt while being handled by the chained irq. >> This resulting in the threaded irq not getting enough cycles to complete >> quickly enough before the irq was disabled as faulty. >> It looks like handle_level_irq should be used in this situation >> instead of handle_simple_irq. > >> @@ -310,7 +310,8 @@ static int altera_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> altera_gc->interrupt_trigger = reg; >> >> ret = gpiochip_irqchip_add(&altera_gc->mmchip.gc, &altera_irq_chip, 0, >> - handle_simple_irq, IRQ_TYPE_NONE); >> + altera_gc->interrupt_trigger == IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH ? >> + handle_level_irq : handle_simple_irq, IRQ_TYPE_NONE); > > AFAIK, handle_bad_irq() should be used here. > G'day Andy Grepping drivers/gpio find a combination of handle_simple_irq handle_level_irq handle_edge_irq handle_bad_irq used in gpiochip_irqchip_add The ones which use handle_bad_irq call irq_set_handler_locked in their irq_type callback to either handle_level_irq / handle_edge_irq So I think in this case it's correct. But I'm no expert. -- Regards Phil Reid
Powered by blists - more mailing lists