From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: request_irq in I2C driver causes kernel to freeze during probe, but if done later - no problem!
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 09:16:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100327091602.GH29179@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BAD4FDE.2010904@atmel.com>
On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 01:22:54AM +0100, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> Russell King - ARM Linux skrev:
> > On Sat, Mar 27, 2010 at 12:16:58AM +0100, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
> >> If the interrupt is executing, then we would see some I2C communication
> >> as a result, but we do not see this, before the kernel freezes.
> >>
> >> The interrupt is (and should be) called on the falling edge of the
> >> interrupt.
> >>
> >> I am currently scratching my head, and need help with ideas...
> >
> > Do you always return IRQ_HANDLED from this handler, or do you return
> > IRQ_NONE if it does no work?
> >
> > If you always return IRQ_HANDLED even if no work was done, it could be
> > that you're spinning on this interrupt, and because you're returning
> > IRQ_HANDLED, the core interrupt handling code thinks progress is being
> > made.
> >
> > If you return IRQ_NONE, then the "bad IRQ" detection code will kick in
> > and disable the IRQ, which should result in some further progress.
> >
>
> Thanks for fast reply.
>
> This is my interrupt routine, which always return IRQ_HANDLED.
> sysfs shows that "mxt->invalid_irq_counter" is never incremented
> even after I successfully enable the interrupt in sysfs.
>
> mxt->dwork will always access the I2C bus but we dont see that.
>
> static irqreturn_t mxt_irq_handler(int irq, void *_mxt)
> {
> struct mxt_data *mxt = _mxt;
> unsigned long flags;
> mxt->irq_counter++;
> spin_lock_irqsave(&mxt->lock, flags);
>
> if (mxt_valid_interrupt()) {
> /* Macro, always returning 1 on these boards */
> cancel_delayed_work(&mxt->dwork);
> schedule_delayed_work(&mxt->dwork, 0);
> mxt->valid_irq_counter++;
> } else {
> mxt->invalid_irq_counter++;
> }
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mxt->lock, flags);
>
> return IRQ_HANDLED;
So yes, you're going to spin indefinitely when you receive the first valid
interrupt.
1. Your device raises an interrupt.
2. The CPU gets interrupted.
3. The kernel reads the IRQ number and calls your handler.
4. The handler schedules the delayed work and returns.
5. The kernel checks for any further pending interrupt, and finds the same
interrupt is still raised, and calls your handler.
6. The handler schedules the delayed work and returns.
7. The kernel checks for any further pending interrupt, and finds the same
interrupt is still raised, and calls your handler.
8. The handler schedules the delayed work and returns.
9. The kernel checks for any further pending interrupt, and finds the same
interrupt is still raised, and calls your handler.
10. The handler schedules the delayed work and returns.
11. The kernel checks for any further pending interrupt, and finds the same
interrupt is still raised, and calls your handler.
...
You must clear the interrupt, or disable the interrupt source. Or make
use of the kernel's threaded IRQs which will deal with the interrupt
masking and running your handler in thread context for you.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-27 9:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-03-26 23:16 request_irq in I2C driver causes kernel to freeze during probe, but if done later - no problem! Ulf Samuelsson
2010-03-26 23:24 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-03-27 0:22 ` Ulf Samuelsson
2010-03-27 0:41 ` Ulf Samuelsson
2010-03-27 1:12 ` Ben Dooks
2010-03-27 7:01 ` Ulf Samuelsson
2010-03-27 10:11 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-03-27 11:06 ` request_irq in I2C driver causes kernel to freeze duringprobe, " Ulf Samuelsson
2010-03-29 10:01 ` request_irq in I2C driver causes kernel to freeze during probe, " Mark Brown
2010-03-27 9:16 ` Russell King - ARM Linux [this message]
2010-03-27 9:17 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100327091602.GH29179@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk \
--to=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).