From: Roland Stigge <stigge@antcom.de>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
paul.gortmaker@windriver.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: irq_set_chained_handler() called too early for hwirq to be initialized
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 19:36:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <508D7B33.80902@antcom.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1210281810390.2756@ionos>
On 28/10/12 18:34, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012, Roland Stigge wrote:
>> consider arch/arm/mach-lpc32xx/irq.c: irq_set_chained_handler() is
>> called at a point where it accesses
>> irq_to_desc(IRQ_LPC32XX_SUB2IRQ)->irq_data.hwirq but which is not yet
>> initialized.
>
> None of the functions which are called inside of
> irq_set_chained_handler() touches desc->irq_data.hwirq.
>
> So what are you talking about?
Via the call trace:
irq_set_chained_handler()
-> __irq_set_handler()
-> irq_startup()
-> irq_enable()
-> desc->irq_data.chip->irq_unmask()
The code path comes back to irq.c's lpc32xx_unmask_irq() which reads the
above described ->hwirq which is only later initialized on
irq_domain_add_legacy(). Hope this explains my above short description.
> Of course are the interrupts preallocated, simply because
> machine_desc->nr_irqs is 0 and therefor the ARM core code allocates
> NR_IRQS irq descriptors in the early setup way before
> lpc32xx_init_irq() is called.
OK, will remove the call to irq_alloc_descs() since it is superfluous.
Still, my question remains if I can move the irq_set_chained_handler()
calls to after of_irq_init() and irq_domain_add_legacy() since only the
latter initializes hwirq.
> If those interrupts would not be preallocated, then the code would
> fail to initialize any interrupt at all. And of course nothing would
> notice as all function calls to set_irq_* do not check the return
> value.
Do you mean mach-lpc32xx/irq.c's calls to set_irq_* not checking the
return values? Maybe because those are declared "void"?
static inline void
irq_set_chained_handler(unsigned int irq, irq_flow_handler_t handle);
void set_irq_flags(unsigned int irq, unsigned int iflags);
static inline void irq_set_chip_and_handler(unsigned int irq,
struct irq_chip *chip,
irq_flow_handler_t handle);
Or did I misunderstand sth.?
Thanks in advance,
Roland
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-28 18:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-28 15:56 irq_set_chained_handler() called too early for hwirq to be initialized Roland Stigge
2012-10-28 17:34 ` Thomas Gleixner
2012-10-28 18:36 ` Roland Stigge [this message]
2012-10-28 18:46 ` Thomas Gleixner
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=508D7B33.80902@antcom.de \
--to=stigge@antcom.de \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paul.gortmaker@windriver.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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