[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87fs03opju.ffs@tglx>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 09:09:09 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, Luo Jiaxing
<luojiaxing@...wei.com>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>, Serge Semin
<Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>, Andy Shevchenko
<andy.shevchenko@...il.com>, Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.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 Sat, Dec 05 2020 at 22:58, Linus Walleij wrote:
> Sorry for top posting but I need the help of the irqchip maintainer
> Marc Z to hash this out.
>
> The mask/unmask/disable/enable semantics is something that
> you need to work with every day to understand right.
The patch is correct.
The irq_enable() callback is required to be a superset of
irq_unmask(). I.e. the core code expects it to do:
1) Some preparatory work to enable the interrupt line
2) Unmask the interrupt, which is why the masked state is cleared
by the core after invoking the irq_enable() callback.
#2 is pretty obvious because if an interrupt chip does not implement the
irq_enable() callback the core defaults to irq_unmask()
Correspondingly the core expects from the irq_disable() callback:
1) To mask the interrupt
2) To do some extra work to disable the interrupt line
Same reasoning as above vs. #1 as the core fallback is to invoke the
irq_unmask() callback when the irq_disable() callback is not
implemented.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists