From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com>,
Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>,
Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: lynxpoint: lock IRQs when starting them
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 15:18:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52949FC2.6010702@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkdYLNWgfOFsRYiy5VBpmiJRGZ-3zo2AMBqAdufqRNFpUwA@mail.gmail.com>
On 11/26/2013 11:52 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Grygorii Strashko
> <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> wrote:
>> On 11/20/2013 04:42 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>>
>>> This uses the new API for tagging GPIO lines as in use by
>>> IRQs. This enforces a few semantic checks on how the underlying
>>> GPIO line is used.
> (...)
>>> +static unsigned int lp_irq_startup(struct irq_data *d)
>>> +{
>>> + struct lp_gpio *lg = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
>>> +
>>> + if (gpio_lock_as_irq(&lg->chip, irqd_to_hwirq(d)))
>>> + dev_err(lg->chip.dev,
>>> + "unable to lock HW IRQ %lu for IRQ\n",
>>> + irqd_to_hwirq(d));
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void lp_irq_shutdown(struct irq_data *d)
>>> +{
>>> + struct lp_gpio *lg = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
>>> +
>>> + gpio_unlock_as_irq(&lg->chip, irqd_to_hwirq(d));
>>> +}
>>
>> Seems, such changes may be risky, because .irq_startup()
>> and irq_enable()/irq_umask() are mutually exclusive, at least at IRQ request time.
>> request_threaded_irq()->__setup_irq()->irq_startup()
>>
>> More over, IRQ core assumes that IRQ is enabled, unmasked and ready for use after
>> .irq_startup() call. You can check functions irq/chip.c->irq_startup() for more info.
>>
>> So, .irq_enable() functionality need to be duplicated in .irq_startup() at least.
>>
>> if you agree - above comment is valid for most of similar recent patches ;)
>
> Yep. I just showcase what a worthless IRQ core user I am...
Yeah. That's the Gray hole in Linux's universe :)
>
> Now what would be the best way to call this?
>
> Should I just move this into the .enable callback, and if there is no
> such callback, create it and call the .unmask explicitly
> at the end of it? It would seem a bit counter-intuitive to do this
> in the .mask/.unmask callback, as that should only do exactly
> that - mask/unmask.
>
> I'll try this approach...
I'm glad to help. Seems you've made it work.
Regards,
-grygorii
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-11-26 13:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-11-20 14:42 [PATCH] gpio: lynxpoint: lock IRQs when starting them Linus Walleij
2013-11-20 18:29 ` Grygorii Strashko
2013-11-26 9:52 ` Linus Walleij
2013-11-26 13:18 ` Grygorii Strashko [this message]
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=52949FC2.6010702@ti.com \
--to=grygorii.strashko@ti.com \
--cc=acourbot@nvidia.com \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mathias.nyman@linux.intel.com \
--cc=mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com \
/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).