[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180508015623.GA61455@rodete-desktop-imager.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2018 18:56:25 -0700
From: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To: JeffyChen <jeffy.chen@...k-chips.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, heiko@...ech.de,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH] pinctrl: rockchip: Disable interrupt when
changing it's capability
On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 09:36:24AM +0800, Jeffy Chen wrote:
> On 05/08/2018 06:15 AM, Brian Norris wrote:
> > On the other hand...this also implies there may be a race condition
> > there, where we might lose an interrupt if there is an edge between the
> > re-configuration of the polarity in rockchip_irq_demux() and the
> > clearing/handling of the interrupt (handle_edge_irq() ->
> > chip->irq_ack()). If we have an edge between there, then we might ack
> > it, but leave the polarity such that we aren't ready for the next
> > (inverted) edge.
>
> if let me guess, the unexpected irq we saw is the hardware trying to avoid
> losing irq? for example, we set a EDGE_RISING, and the hardware saw the gpio
> is already high, then though it might lost an irq, so fake one for safe?
I won't pretend to know what the IC designers were doing, but I don't
think that would resolve the problem I'm talking about. The sequence is
something like:
1. EDGE_BOTH IRQ occurs (e.g., low to high)
2. reconfigure polarity in rockchip_irq_demux() (polarity=low)
3. continue to handle_edge_irq()
4. another HW edge occurs (e.g., high to low)
5. handle_edge_irq() (from 3) acks (clears) IRQ (before a subsequent
rockchip_irq_demux() gets a chance to run and flip the polarity)
...
Now the polarity is still low, but the next trigger should be a
low-to-high edge.
> i'll try to confirm it with IC guys.
Brian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists