[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1707111636180.1799@nanos>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 16:41:01 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@...labora.co.uk>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] irq updates for 4.13
On Tue, 11 Jul 2017, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> [170711 02:48]:
> And "external abort on non-linefetch" means something is not clocked
> in this case. The following alone makes things boot for me again, but I don't
> quite follow what has now changed with the ordering.. Thomas, any ideas?
Ah. Now that makes sense.
Unpatched the ordering is:
chip_bus_lock(desc);
irq_request_resources(desc);
Now the offending change reordered the calls. OMAP gpio has:
omap_gpio_irq_bus_lock()
pm_runtime_get_sync(bank->chip.parent);
So that at least explains the error. So that omap gpio irq chip (ab)uses
the bus_lock() callback to do runtime power management. Sigh, I did not
expect that. Let me have a deeper look if that's OMAP only or whether this
happens in other places as well.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists