[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fa39c2f9dba4421095d846e87f755407@hisilicon.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2021 01:33:12 +0000
From: "Song Bao Hua (Barry Song)" <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
CC: "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"maz@...nel.org" <maz@...nel.org>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"linux-input@...r.kernel.org" <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linuxarm@...neuler.org" <linuxarm@...neuler.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] genirq: add IRQF_NO_AUTOEN for request_irq
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dmitry Torokhov [mailto:dmitry.torokhov@...il.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 12:01 PM
> To: Song Bao Hua (Barry Song) <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>
> Cc: tglx@...utronix.de; maz@...nel.org; gregkh@...uxfoundation.org;
> linux-input@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org;
> linuxarm@...neuler.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] genirq: add IRQF_NO_AUTOEN for request_irq
>
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2021 at 11:26:12AM +1300, Barry Song wrote:
> > This patch originated from the discussion with Dmitry in the below thread:
> >
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-input/20210102042902.41664-1-song.bao.hua@hi
> silicon.com/
> > there are many drivers which don't want interrupts enabled automatically
> > due to request_irq().
> > So they are handling this issue by either way of the below two:
> > (1)
> > irq_set_status_flags(irq, IRQ_NOAUTOEN);
> > request_irq(dev, irq...);
> > (2)
> > request_irq(dev, irq...);
> > disable_irq(irq);
> >
> > The code in the second way is silly and unsafe. In the small time gap
> > between request_irq and disable_irq, interrupts can still come.
> > The code in the first way is safe though we might be able to do it in
> > the generic irq code.
> >
> > I guess Dmitry also prefers genirq handles this as he said
> > "What I would like to see is to allow passing something like IRQF_DISABLED
> > to request_irq() so that we would not need neither irq_set_status_flags()
> > nor disable_irq()" in the original email thread.
>
> One of the reasons I dislike irq_set_status_flags() is that we have to
> call it before we actually granted our IRQ request...
>
> >
> > If this one is accepted, hundreds of drivers with this problem will be
> > handled afterwards.
> >
> > Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Barry Song <song.bao.hua@...ilicon.com>
> > ---
> > include/linux/interrupt.h | 3 +++
> > kernel/irq/manage.c | 3 +++
> > kernel/irq/settings.h | 10 ++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/interrupt.h b/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > index bb8ff9083e7d..0f22d277078c 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > @@ -61,6 +61,8 @@
> > * interrupt handler after suspending interrupts. For system
> > * wakeup devices users need to implement wakeup detection in
> > * their interrupt handlers.
> > + * IRQF_NO_AUTOEN - Don't enable IRQ automatically when users request it.
> Users
> > + * will enable it explicitly by enable_irq() later.
> > */
> > #define IRQF_SHARED 0x00000080
> > #define IRQF_PROBE_SHARED 0x00000100
> > @@ -74,6 +76,7 @@
> > #define IRQF_NO_THREAD 0x00010000
> > #define IRQF_EARLY_RESUME 0x00020000
> > #define IRQF_COND_SUSPEND 0x00040000
> > +#define IRQF_NO_AUTOEN 0x00080000
> >
> > #define IRQF_TIMER (__IRQF_TIMER | IRQF_NO_SUSPEND | IRQF_NO_THREAD)
> >
> > diff --git a/kernel/irq/manage.c b/kernel/irq/manage.c
> > index ab8567f32501..364e8b47d9ba 100644
> > --- a/kernel/irq/manage.c
> > +++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c
> > @@ -1693,6 +1693,9 @@ __setup_irq(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc *desc,
> struct irqaction *new)
> > irqd_set(&desc->irq_data, IRQD_NO_BALANCING);
> > }
> >
> > + if (new->flags & IRQF_NO_AUTOEN)
> > + irq_settings_set_noautoen(desc);
>
> Can we make sure we refuse this request if the caller also specified
> IRQF_SHARED?
Right now, there is a warning for IRQF_SHARED + NOAUTOEN:
if (irq_settings_can_autoenable(desc)) {
irq_startup(desc, IRQ_RESEND, IRQ_START_COND);
} else {
/*
* Shared interrupts do not go well with disabling
* auto enable. The sharing interrupt might request
* it while it's still disabled and then wait for
* interrupts forever.
*/
WARN_ON_ONCE(new->flags & IRQF_SHARED);
/* Undo nested disables: */
desc->depth = 1;
}
Of course, this could also be clearly rejected in the sanity-check
of request_threaded_irq() if we want to totally prohibit this
behavior:
int request_threaded_irq(unsigned int irq, irq_handler_t handler,
irq_handler_t thread_fn, unsigned long irqflags,
const char *devname, void *dev_id)
{
struct irqaction *action;
struct irq_desc *desc;
int retval;
if (irq == IRQ_NOTCONNECTED)
return -ENOTCONN;
/*
* Sanity-check: shared interrupts must pass in a real dev-ID,
* otherwise we'll have trouble later trying to figure out
* which interrupt is which (messes up the interrupt freeing
* logic etc).
*
* Also IRQF_COND_SUSPEND only makes sense for shared interrupts and
* it cannot be set along with IRQF_NO_SUSPEND.
*/
if (((irqflags & IRQF_SHARED) && !dev_id) ||
(!(irqflags & IRQF_SHARED) && (irqflags & IRQF_COND_SUSPEND)) ||
((irqflags & IRQF_NO_SUSPEND) && (irqflags & IRQF_COND_SUSPEND)))
return -EINVAL;
>
> Thanks.
Thanks
Barry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists