[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BY5PR12MB37780DF07B437B9FFD1BB344F26D0@BY5PR12MB3778.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 03:48:43 +0000
From: "S, Shirish" <Shirish.S@....com>
To: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
CC: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Raul Rangel <rrangel@...gle.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
"kurt@...utronix.de" <kurt@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: RE: UART/TTY console deadlock
Hi All,
Can we land this patch upstream?
Feel free to add my tested-by.
Thanks.
Regards,
Shirish S
-----Original Message-----
From: S, Shirish <Shirish.S@....com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 12:15 PM
To: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>; Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>; Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>; Raul Rangel <rrangel@...gle.com>; Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>; linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>; Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>; Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>; kurt@...utronix.de; S, Shirish <Shirish.S@....com>; Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>; John Ogness <john.ogness@...utronix.de>; Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: UART/TTY console deadlock
On 6/30/2020 11:32 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com> [200630 13:06]:
>> On (20/06/30 14:22), Petr Mladek wrote:
> ...
>
>>>>>> @@ -2284,8 +2289,6 @@ int serial8250_do_startup(struct uart_port *port)
>>>>>> * allow register changes to become visible.
>>>>>> */
>>>>>> spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);
>>>>>> - if (up->port.irqflags & IRQF_SHARED)
>>>>>> - disable_irq_nosync(port->irq);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wait_for_xmitr(up, UART_LSR_THRE);
>>>>>> serial_port_out_sync(port, UART_IER, UART_IER_THRI); @@
>>>>>> -2297,9 +2300,9 @@ int serial8250_do_startup(struct uart_port *port)
>>>>>> iir = serial_port_in(port, UART_IIR);
>>>>>> serial_port_out(port, UART_IER, 0);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - if (port->irqflags & IRQF_SHARED)
>>>>>> - enable_irq(port->irq);
>>>>>> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags);
>>>>>> + if (irq_shared)
>>>>>> + enable_irq(port->irq);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /*
>>>>>> * If the interrupt is not reasserted, or we otherwise
>>>>> I think that it might be safe but I am not 100% sure, sigh.
>>>> Yeah, I'm not 100%, but I'd give it a try.
>>> I do not feel brave enough to ack it today. But I am all for trying
>>> it if anyone more familiar with the code is fine with it.
>> I see. Well, I suppose we need Ack-s from tty/serial/8250 maintainers.
>> I would not be very happy if _only_ printk people Ack the patch.
FWIW, the lockdep trace is not seen anymore with the patch applied.
Regards,
Shirish S
> This conditional disable for irq_shared does not look nice to me from
> the other device point of view :)
>
> Would it be possible to just set up te dummy interrupt handler for the
> startup, then change it back afterwards? See for example
> omap8250_no_handle_irq().
>
> The other device for irq_shared should be capable of dealing with
> spurious interrupts if it's shared.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tony
--
Regards,
Shirish S
Powered by blists - more mailing lists