From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: thierry.reding@gmail.com (Thierry Reding) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 09:28:38 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: tegra: irq: fix buggy usage of irq_data irq field In-Reply-To: <1417024532-5777-2-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> References: <1417024532-5777-1-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <1417024532-5777-2-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> Message-ID: <20141127082836.GA19323@ulmo> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 05:55:31PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > The crazy gic_arch_extn thing that Tegra uses contains multiple > references to the irq field in struct irq_data, and uses this > to directly poke hardware register. > > But irq is the *virtual* irq number, something that has nothing > to do with the actual HW irq (stored in the hwirq field). And once > we put the stacked domain code in action, the whole thing explodes, > as these two values are *very* different: Do you have follow-up patches to use stacked domains on Tegra? I tried to move this driver out to drivers/irqchip at some point and that caused a bit of pain because of gic_arch_extn and probe order. At the time I was told that work was in progress to provide a more generic solution that could replace gic_arch_extn, which I'm assuming this stacked domain code is. > root at bacon-fat:~# cat /proc/interrupts > CPU0 CPU1 > 16: 25801 2075 GIC 29 twd > 17: 0 0 GIC 73 timer0 > 112: 0 0 GPIO 58 c8000600.sdhci cd > 123: 0 0 GPIO 69 c8000200.sdhci cd > 279: 1126 0 GIC 122 serial > 281: 0 0 GIC 70 7000c000.i2c > 282: 0 0 GIC 116 7000c400.i2c > 283: 0 0 GIC 124 7000c500.i2c > 284: 300 0 GIC 85 7000d000.i2c > [...] > > Just replacing all instances of irq with hwirq fixes the issue. > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier > --- > arch/arm/mach-tegra/irq.c | 22 +++++++++++----------- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) This looks correct to me. Do you need this to base subsequent patches on or shall I just take those through the Tegra tree? I'm not sure if the ARM SoC maintainers will take a follow-up pull request for 3.19, so let me know if there's a hurry to get this in if it's going to make stacked domain code difficult to merge. Thierry -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: not available URL: