[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e3199e23-0973-44d2-a882-405892290e73@microchip.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2025 14:35:03 +0200
From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com>
To: Edgar Bonet <bonet@...noble.cnrs.fr>, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@...ux-m68k.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, Claudiu Beznea
<claudiu.beznea@...on.dev>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>
Subject: Re: [ISSUE + PATCH] Interrupts were enabled early by spinlock guard
On 14/08/2025 at 17:28, Edgar Bonet wrote:
> Hello Geert, and thanks for you prompt review!
Yep, Geert, many thanks!
>> I think the conversions in
>> drivers/irqchip/irq-atmel-aic.c:aic_irq_domain_xlate() and
>> drivers/irqchip/irq-loongson-liointc.c:liointc_set_type()
>> are also wrong, and need a similar change.
>
> The one in irq-atmel-aic.c looks indeed strikingly similar. The one in
> irq-loongson-liointc.c is slightly different though. Instead of:
>
> irq_gc_lock_irqsave() -> guard(raw_spinlock_irq)
>
> it does:
>
> irq_gc_lock_irqsave() -> guard(raw_spinlock)
>
> I don't know what the implications are though.
>
>> Unfortunately I have no hardware to verify.
>
> Neither do I.
I'm on it. Expect feedback later today...
Thanks so much for the heads-up.
Best regards,
Nicolas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists