[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <163426014715.936959.6136985763712059359@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 18:09:07 -0700
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To: Fenglin Wu <quic_fenglinw@...cinc.com>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: collinsd@...eaurora.org, subbaram@...eaurora.org,
Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <adharmap@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v1 1/9] spmi: pmic-arb: add a print in cleanup_irq
Quoting Fenglin Wu (2021-10-13 19:26:55)
>
> On 10/14/2021 3:35 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Fenglin Wu (2021-10-12 21:15:42)
> >> On 10/13/2021 1:46 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >>> Quoting Fenglin Wu (2021-09-16 23:32:56)
> >>>> From: Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <adharmap@...eaurora.org>
> >>>>
> >>>> The cleanup_irq() was meant to clear and mask interrupts that were
> >>>> left enabled in the hardware but there was no interrupt handler
> >>>> registered for it. Add an error print when it gets invoked.
> >>> Why? Don't we get the genirq spurious irq message in this scenario?
> >> Thanks for reviewing the change.
> >>
> >> No, there is no existing message printed out in this special case ( IRQ
> >> fired for not registered interrupt).
> > Ah I see so the irq doesn't have a flow handler? Shouldn't you call
> > handle_bad_irq() in this case so we get a irq descriptor print?
> In such case, the irq number is not valid and there won't be a valid
> irq_desc, hence it's not possible to call handle_bad_irq() here.
I mean handle_bad_irq() on the irqdesc for the spmi pmic arb chained
irq. Because things are not good with the chained irq.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists