From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: v4.14 fix for Hikey 960 unbalanced IRQ enablement Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 12:05:28 +0100 Message-ID: <20181206110528.GM19891@kroah.com> References: <20181203133107.4002-1-rafael.tinoco@linaro.org> <20181203141442.GA19335@kroah.com> <20181203151946.GG235790@sasha-vm> <20181203180521.GA15996@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Rafael David Tinoco Cc: Sasha Levin , Daniel Lezcano , rui.zhang@intel.com, edubezval@gmail.com, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 04:24:48PM -0200, Rafael David Tinoco wrote: > >> Greg, > >> > >> Patch 5 in this series seems to explain the best what is happening here: > >> > >>> With the following changes, we fix all in one: > >>> > >>> - Do the setup, one time, at probe time > >>> > >>> - Add the IRQF_ONESHOT, ack the interrupt in the threaded handler > >>> > >>> - Remove the interrupt handler > >>> > >>> - Set the correct value for the LAG register > >>> > >>> - Remove all the irq_enabled stuff in the code as the interruption > >>> handling is fixed > >>> > >>> - Remove the 3ms delay > >>> > >>> - Reorder the initialization routine to be in the right order > >> > >> We can't revert anything because the breakage was there since the driver > >> was introduced. > > > > So the driver was broken in 4.14, why not just use 4.19 instead? This > > isn't a 4.14 regression, it's something that obviously no one has > > noticed for a year now, so why backport these big patches to 4.14 now? > > > > thanks, > > > > greg k-h > > > > This was caught during our functional tests. No direct complains, but, > since it included a trace, and there was a fix for it, I thought it > could be accepted for upstream v4.14 (it is included in other v4.14 > kernels, like Android's). Ok, all now queued up, thanks. greg k-h