From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: "Munique Feitoza" <muniquefeitoz4@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: amd: Clear interrupt enable on spurious IRQ and skip unhandled EOI
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2026 20:02:55 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <sashiko-outbox-191459@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20261030195025.5153-1-muniquefeitoz4@gmail.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [High] pinctrl: amd: missing EOI in do_amd_gpio_irq_handler() on spurious IRQ
--
commit df92227f2b1cea5ec26fd7063440df3f2e4656a4
Author: Munique Feitoza <muniquefeitoz4@gmail.com>
pinctrl: amd: Clear interrupt enable on spurious IRQ and skip unhandled EOI
This commit clears BIT(INTERRUPT_ENABLE_OFF) alongside BIT(INTERRUPT_MASK_OFF)
when disabling a spurious GPIO IRQ in do_amd_gpio_irq_handler(), and returns
early before writing EOI_MASK to WAKE_INT_MASTER_REG when ret is false.
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-amd.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-amd.c
> index 9fa752f552d43..42844094916a7 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-amd.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-amd.c
> @@ -671,7 +671,8 @@ static bool do_amd_gpio_irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_dev->lock, flags);
> regval = readl(amd_gpio_pin_reg(gpio_dev, irqnr + i));
> if (!gpiochip_line_is_irq(gc, irqnr + i)) {
> - regval &= ~BIT(INTERRUPT_MASK_OFF);
> + regval &= ~(BIT(INTERRUPT_MASK_OFF) |
> + BIT(INTERRUPT_ENABLE_OFF));
> dev_dbg(&gpio_dev->pdev->dev,
> "Disabling spurious GPIO IRQ %d\n",
> irqnr + i);
> @@ -722,7 +723,8 @@ static bool do_amd_gpio_irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_dev->lock, flags);
> regval = readl(amd_gpio_pin_reg(gpio_dev, pin));
> if (!gpiochip_line_is_irq(gc, pin)) {
> - regval &= ~BIT(INTERRUPT_MASK_OFF);
> + regval &= ~(BIT(INTERRUPT_MASK_OFF) |
> + BIT(INTERRUPT_ENABLE_OFF));
> dev_dbg(&gpio_dev->pdev->dev,
> "Disabling spurious GPIO IRQ %d\n",
> pin);
> @@ -735,7 +737,7 @@ static bool do_amd_gpio_irq_handler(int irq, void *dev_id)
> }
>
> /* did not cause wake on resume context for shared IRQ */
> - if (irq < 0)
> + if (irq < 0 || !ret)
> return false;
[Severity: High]
Does skipping the EOI write when !ret is true leave the AMD GPIO controller
with an unacknowledged interrupt after a spurious GPIO IRQ?
When an unmasked pin raises an interrupt while gpiochip_line_is_irq() is false
(for instance, at boot before a client driver such as i2c-hid probes as in
commit d21b8adbd475 ("pinctrl: amd: Disable and mask interrupts on probe"), or
after suspend/resume when firmware leaves an unused pin unmasked as in commit
0cf9e48ff22e ("pinctrl: amd: Disable and mask interrupts on resume")),
do_amd_gpio_irq_handler() clears and disables the pin interrupt in the
!gpiochip_line_is_irq() branch on the main or RGPIO bank without setting
ret = true:
drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-amd.c:do_amd_gpio_irq_handler() {
...
if (!gpiochip_line_is_irq(gc, irqnr + i)) {
regval &= ~(BIT(INTERRUPT_MASK_OFF) |
BIT(INTERRUPT_ENABLE_OFF));
dev_dbg(&gpio_dev->pdev->dev,
"Disabling spurious GPIO IRQ %d\n",
irqnr + i);
} else {
ret = true;
}
writel(regval, amd_gpio_pin_reg(gpio_dev, irqnr + i));
...
}
If no other registered GPIO IRQ is active during the same invocation, ret
remains false even though the AMD GPIO hardware asserted the interrupt line.
Returning early at if (irq < 0 || !ret) skips writing EOI_MASK to
WAKE_INT_MASTER_REG:
/* did not cause wake on resume context for shared IRQ */
if (irq < 0 || !ret)
return false;
/* Signal EOI to the GPIO unit */
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&gpio_dev->lock, flags);
regval = readl(gpio_dev->base + WAKE_INT_MASTER_REG);
regval |= EOI_MASK;
writel(regval, gpio_dev->base + WAKE_INT_MASTER_REG);
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&gpio_dev->lock, flags);
Because the flow handlers used by amd_gpio_irqchip (handle_edge_irq,
handle_level_irq, and handle_simple_irq) do not call .irq_eoi,
do_amd_gpio_irq_handler() is the only place that signals EOI to the GPIO
unit. Wouldn't skipping EOI_MASK after servicing a spurious GPIO interrupt
prevent the controller from delivering subsequent valid GPIO interrupts?
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20261030195025.5153-1-muniquefeitoz4@gmail.com?part=1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-10-30 20:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-10-30 19:50 [PATCH] pinctrl: amd: Clear interrupt enable on spurious IRQ and skip unhandled EOI Munique Feitoza
2026-10-30 20:02 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
2026-10-30 20:08 ` [PATCH v2] pinctrl: amd: Clear interrupt enable bit on spurious GPIO IRQ Munique Feitoza
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=sashiko-outbox-191459@kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=muniquefeitoz4@gmail.com \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/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