From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yadi Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c-eg20t: fix race between i2c init and interrupt enable Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 09:19:15 +0800 Message-ID: <57E33193.7010403@windriver.com> References: <1474195951-7238-1-git-send-email-yadi.hu@windriver.com> <1474195951-7238-2-git-send-email-yadi.hu@windriver.com> <20160921161608.GB1432@katana> <20160921161846.GC1432@katana> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from mail1.windriver.com ([147.11.146.13]:57216 "EHLO mail1.windriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755086AbcIVBT6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2016 21:19:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20160921161846.GC1432@katana> Sender: linux-i2c-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org To: Wolfram Sang Cc: jdelvare@suse.de, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On 2016年09月22日 00:18, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 06:16:09PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 06:52:31PM +0800, Yadi Hu wrote: >>> From: "Yadi.hu" >>> >>> the eg20t driver call request_irq() function before the pch_base_address, >>> base address of i2c controller's register, is assigned an effective value. >>> >>> there is one possible scenario that an interrupt which isn't inside eg20t >>> arrives immediately after request_irq() is executed when i2c controller >>> shares an interrupt number with others. since the interrupt handler >>> pch_i2c_handler() has already active as shared action, it will be called >>> and read its own register to determine if this interrupt is from itself. >>> >>> At that moment, since base address of i2c registers is not remapped >>> in kernel space yet,so the INT handler will access an illegal address >>> and then a error occurs. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Yadi.hu >> Applied to for-next, thanks! > I meant: applied to for-current! one quick and stupid question, what's different between for-current and for-next branch? Yadi >