[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1705311036570.1909@nanos>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 10:38:34 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
cc: jeffy <jeffy.chen@...k-chips.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, dianders@...omium.org,
tfiga@...omium.org, Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] genirq: Check irq disabled & masked states in
irq_shutdown
On Tue, 30 May 2017, Brian Norris wrote:
> Sorry to respond to myself. Thomas, your reply to another mail in this
> series helped me to notice:
>
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 04:19:58PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> > Side note: for issues like the first problem above, I wonder why there
> > isn't a flag that once could pass to request_irq() that suggests the IRQ
> > should be initially disabled?
>
> Is that what IRQ_NOAUTOEN is for?
Yes.
> > I know this wouldn't work for shared
> > interrupts (but request_irq() could reject that combination, no?)
>
> Hehe, but then I see this, for example, when grepping around:
>
> drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-omap.c:
>
> irq_set_status_flags(omap->irq, IRQ_NOAUTOEN);
> ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, omap->irq, dwc3_omap_interrupt,
> dwc3_omap_interrupt_thread, IRQF_SHARED,
> "dwc3-omap", omap);
>
> IIUC, that's quite broken, no?
Indeed. Because the interrupt could have been requested by some other
driver already. In that case IRQ_NOAUTOEN has no effect at all.
We probably should check that in __setup_irq() and yell at people.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists