[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8592c7f0-a9e9-f48c-e9e4-0e24e22b3f57@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 21:04:02 +0800
From: luojiaxing <luojiaxing@...wei.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] gpio: dwapb: mask/unmask IRQ when disable/enable it
On 2020/12/6 23:02, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 11:15 PM Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> Hmm, that sounds like a problem, but the explanation is a bit unclear
>> to me. AFAICS you are saying that the only callbacks which are
>> called during the IRQ request/release are the irq_enable(), right? If
>> so then the only reason why we haven't got a problem reported due to
>> that so far is that the IRQs actually unmasked by default.
> What we usually do in cases like that (and I have discussed this
> with tglx in the past I think) is to simply mask off all IRQs in probe().
> Then they will be unmasked when requested by drivers.
Yes, I agree. but in this case I mean that they will not unmasked when
drivers request IRQ.
Drivers request IRQ will only call irq_enable(), so if we mask all IRQ
in gpio-dwab.'s probe(),
no one will unmask the IRQ for drivers.
Thanks
Jiaxing
>
> See e.g. gpio-pl061 that has this line in probe():
> writeb(0, pl061->base + GPIOIE); /* disable irqs */
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
>
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists