From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: alexandre.torgue@st.com (Alexandre Torgue) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 15:44:12 +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: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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. 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 Alex > > Thanks, > > tglx >