From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: alexandre.torgue@st.com (Alexandre Torgue) Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 11:48:20 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v5 2/9] drivers: irqchip: Add STM32 external interrupts support In-Reply-To: References: <1473432124-6784-1-git-send-email-alexandre.torgue@st.com> <1473432124-6784-3-git-send-email-alexandre.torgue@st.com> <6941f61d-0b33-4108-0135-b11887cd0488@st.com> Message-ID: <39c4ceee-7e05-ebfd-2ea0-3c4e1c4ea619@st.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Thomas, On 09/14/2016 03:44 PM, Alexandre Torgue wrote: > > > On 09/14/2016 03:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Alexandre Torgue wrote: >>> On 09/14/2016 11:19 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>>> >>>> Now what really bugs me is that you do that at all. An interrupt >>>> which is >>>> freed must be masked already. Why is it unmasked in the first place? >>> >>> Honestly I don't know. When "devm_free_irq" is called to release >>> virq, there >>> is no issue and interrupt is well masked. But, when I tried to use >>> "irq_dispose_mapping(virq)" I observed that .free is called (child >>> and parent >>> domain) but interrupt is not masked. >> >> Well, you just used some function in some context which is not >> relevant to >> the normal operation. So adding that mask() is just paranoia for no >> value. > A gentle reminder ping... If ".free" callback is not relevant then I 'll remove it from exti domain. > I agree. I just wanted to "force" a test for .free callback. If it not > relevant I'll remove ".free" callback of exti domain. > As a part of this series has already been taken by Linus (pinctrl part), > I will send a new series only for irqchip part (patches [1] and [2]). Do > you agree ? > Thanks in advance Alex > Thanks > Alex > > >> >> Thanks, >> >> tglx >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel