[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b8f33e9b-ebd2-b9cf-a31c-5140a8bf68c5@sondrel.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 16:43:48 +0100
From: Ed Blake <ed.blake@...drel.com>
To: James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, jason@...edaemon.net, marc.zyngier@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] irqchip: imgpdc: Pass on peripheral mask/unmasks to
the parent
On 05/10/17 16:26, James Hogan wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 03:48:53PM +0100, Ed Blake wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure how this is supposed to work, but the issue seems to be
>> that without this patch the parent irq isn't being masked. This is
>> causing the parent handler (MIPS GIC in this case) to be called
>> continuously. This leads to the PDC irq being masked each time, but not
>> the parent irq. This is the callstack:
>>
>> "irq-imgpdc.c"::perip_irq_mask
>> mask_ack_irq
>> handle_level_irq
>> generic_handle_irq_desc
>> generic_handle_irq
>> generic_handle_irq_desc
>> generic_handle_irq
>> gic_handle_shared_int
>> gic_handle_local_int
>> "irq-mips-gic.c"::gic_irq_dispatch
>> generic_handle_irq_desc
>> generic_handle_irq
>> do_IRQ
>> plat_irq_dispatch()
> Right, yeh it shouldn't technically be masked by the parent (contrary to
> what I said above) because its a chained handler, i.e. as far as the
> kernel knows there could be other IRQs coming through that GIC pin that
> would also get masked.
>
> (though IIRC the perip IRQs can wake, but then they go straight out to
> separate dedicated IRQ pins into the main IRQ chip, i.e. the GIC in this
> case).
That's right, each of the PDC peripherals (RTC, WD, IR) has a dedicated
IRQ to the parent, and the sys wakes are muxed onto a single IRQ.
> I think its worth understanding the root cause here though. Disabling
> routing of an IRQ fundamentally should deassert it. Is it an actual
> hardware bug that has reached silicon?
So you think the PDC->parent IRQ must not be being de-asserted when
IRQ_ROUTE is cleared? I hadn't considered this and thought it was some
persistence in the GIC due to not being masked / ack'd there. Is that
possible? I'll discuss the possible IRQ_ROUTE issue with the hardware team.
Ed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists