[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YgJ2hG2vwUclA/zF@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2022 13:56:20 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@...nsource.cirrus.com>
Cc: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@...sung.com>,
Prasad Kumpatla <quic_pkumpatl@...cinc.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
'Linux Samsung SOC' <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] regmap-irq: Use regmap_irq_update_bits instead of
regmap_write
On Tue, Feb 08, 2022 at 01:50:36PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
> Apologies for the multiple emails, yeah looking at this I think
> need some more information on how the hardware that patch was
> addressing works. I don't quite understand what was wrong with
> the old code even in the inverted case, the old code wrote a 1 to
> every bit except the interrupt being cleared which gets a 0. This
> feels like how I would have thought a write 0 to clear IRQ would
> work, you don't want to clear any other bits so you write 1 to
> them.
> The update_bits is really problematic as even in the write 0 to
> clear case, if a new interrupt asserts between the regmap_read
> and regmap_write that make up the update_bits, you will clear that
> new interrupt without ever noticing it.
My understanding was that they'd mixed interrupt handling in as a
bitfield in another register.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists