[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170710193856.GA14693@amd>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 21:38:56 +0200
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.co.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] irq updates for 4.13
Hi!
> > This patch apparently breaks OMAP platform:
> >
> > 46e48e257360f0845fe17089713cbad4db611e70 is the first bad commit
> > commit 46e48e257360f0845fe17089713cbad4db611e70
> > Author: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> > Date: Thu Jun 29 23:33:38 2017 +0200
> >
> > genirq: Move irq resource handling out of spinlocked region
> >
> > Boot failure log from Droid 4:
> > [ ... snip snip ..]
> >
> > Droid 4 boots current master again after applying the patch below
> > (which is git revet of above patch, but I provide the patch, since
> > it did not revet cleanly).
>
> Hmm. Do you actually need the full revert?
>
> I think it's only the __setup_irq() part that looks like it may be garbage.
>
> For example, I think it releases the resources twice if the
> __irq_set_trigger() call fails.
>
> But it looks questionably in other ways too - notably, the change to
> make the request call be in the same context as the freeing is done is
> apparently done entirely for symmetry reasons, not for any actual
> *reason* reasons.
>
> So I suspect just the __setup_irq() parts should be reverted, because
> they look both buggy and pointless. But the actual *real* part of the
> patch was the two-liner __free_irq() part, and that looks sane to me.
>
> So Sebastian, can you test if it's ok to revert just the __setup_irq()
> part, but leave the smaller part in __free_irq() that just moves the
> irq_release_resources() around at freeing time?
If I understood it correctly, you wanted to test this:
And yes, this is enough to fix boot on N900 for me.
Thanks,
Pavel
commit 285358d48dec82f13fa76724bff434897883d188
Author: Pavel <pavel@....cz>
Date: Mon Jul 10 21:35:25 2017 +0200
diff --git a/kernel/irq/manage.c b/kernel/irq/manage.c
index 5624b2d..528bfc3 100644
--- a/kernel/irq/manage.c
+++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c
@@ -1168,14 +1168,6 @@ __setup_irq(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc *desc, struct irqaction *new)
new->flags &= ~IRQF_ONESHOT;
mutex_lock(&desc->request_mutex);
- if (!desc->action) {
- ret = irq_request_resources(desc);
- if (ret) {
- pr_err("Failed to request resources for %s (irq %d) on irqchip %s\n",
- new->name, irq, desc->irq_data.chip->name);
- goto out_mutex;
- }
- }
chip_bus_lock(desc);
@@ -1279,6 +1271,13 @@ __setup_irq(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc *desc, struct irqaction *new)
}
if (!shared) {
+ ret = irq_request_resources(desc);
+ if (ret) {
+ pr_err("Failed to request resources for %s (irq %d) on irqchip %s\n",
+ new->name, irq, desc->irq_data.chip->name);
+ goto out_unlock;
+ }
+
init_waitqueue_head(&desc->wait_for_threads);
/* Setup the type (level, edge polarity) if configured: */
@@ -1387,10 +1386,6 @@ __setup_irq(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc *desc, struct irqaction *new)
chip_bus_sync_unlock(desc);
- if (!desc->action)
- irq_release_resources(desc);
-
-out_mutex:
mutex_unlock(&desc->request_mutex);
out_thread:
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists