From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alexandre Torgue Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/9] drivers: irqchip: Add STM32 external interrupts support Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 15:44:12 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1473432124-6784-1-git-send-email-alexandre.torgue@st.com> <1473432124-6784-3-git-send-email-alexandre.torgue@st.com> <6941f61d-0b33-4108-0135-b11887cd0488@st.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx08-00178001.pphosted.com ([91.207.212.93]:50740 "EHLO mx07-00178001.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750815AbcINNo5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:44:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Maxime Coquelin , Jason Cooper , Marc Zyngier , Linus Walleij , Mark Rutland , Rob Herring , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Thompson , bruherrera@gmail.com, lee.jones@linaro.org On 09/14/2016 03:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Alexandre Torgue wrote: >> On 09/14/2016 11:19 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> >>> Now what really bugs me is that you do that at all. An interrupt which is >>> freed must be masked already. Why is it unmasked in the first place? >> >> Honestly I don't know. When "devm_free_irq" is called to release virq, there >> is no issue and interrupt is well masked. But, when I tried to use >> "irq_dispose_mapping(virq)" I observed that .free is called (child and parent >> domain) but interrupt is not masked. > > Well, you just used some function in some context which is not relevant to > the normal operation. So adding that mask() is just paranoia for no value. I agree. I just wanted to "force" a test for .free callback. If it not relevant I'll remove ".free" callback of exti domain. As a part of this series has already been taken by Linus (pinctrl part), I will send a new series only for irqchip part (patches [1] and [2]). Do you agree ? Thanks Alex > > Thanks, > > tglx > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761833AbcINNpA (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:45:00 -0400 Received: from mx08-00178001.pphosted.com ([91.207.212.93]:50740 "EHLO mx07-00178001.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750815AbcINNo5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Sep 2016 09:44:57 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/9] drivers: irqchip: Add STM32 external interrupts support To: Thomas Gleixner References: <1473432124-6784-1-git-send-email-alexandre.torgue@st.com> <1473432124-6784-3-git-send-email-alexandre.torgue@st.com> <6941f61d-0b33-4108-0135-b11887cd0488@st.com> CC: Maxime Coquelin , Jason Cooper , Marc Zyngier , Linus Walleij , Mark Rutland , Rob Herring , , , , , , Daniel Thompson , , From: Alexandre Torgue Message-ID: Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 15:44:12 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.48.0.2] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2016-09-14_06:,, signatures=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/14/2016 03:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Alexandre Torgue wrote: >> On 09/14/2016 11:19 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> >>> Now what really bugs me is that you do that at all. An interrupt which is >>> freed must be masked already. Why is it unmasked in the first place? >> >> Honestly I don't know. When "devm_free_irq" is called to release virq, there >> is no issue and interrupt is well masked. But, when I tried to use >> "irq_dispose_mapping(virq)" I observed that .free is called (child and parent >> domain) but interrupt is not masked. > > Well, you just used some function in some context which is not relevant to > the normal operation. So adding that mask() is just paranoia for no value. I agree. I just wanted to "force" a test for .free callback. If it not relevant I'll remove ".free" callback of exti domain. As a part of this series has already been taken by Linus (pinctrl part), I will send a new series only for irqchip part (patches [1] and [2]). Do you agree ? Thanks Alex > > Thanks, > > tglx > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: alexandre.torgue@st.com (Alexandre Torgue) Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 15:44:12 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v5 2/9] drivers: irqchip: Add STM32 external interrupts support In-Reply-To: References: <1473432124-6784-1-git-send-email-alexandre.torgue@st.com> <1473432124-6784-3-git-send-email-alexandre.torgue@st.com> <6941f61d-0b33-4108-0135-b11887cd0488@st.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 09/14/2016 03:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Alexandre Torgue wrote: >> On 09/14/2016 11:19 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> >>> Now what really bugs me is that you do that at all. An interrupt which is >>> freed must be masked already. Why is it unmasked in the first place? >> >> Honestly I don't know. When "devm_free_irq" is called to release virq, there >> is no issue and interrupt is well masked. But, when I tried to use >> "irq_dispose_mapping(virq)" I observed that .free is called (child and parent >> domain) but interrupt is not masked. > > Well, you just used some function in some context which is not relevant to > the normal operation. So adding that mask() is just paranoia for no value. I agree. I just wanted to "force" a test for .free callback. If it not relevant I'll remove ".free" callback of exti domain. As a part of this series has already been taken by Linus (pinctrl part), I will send a new series only for irqchip part (patches [1] and [2]). Do you agree ? Thanks Alex > > Thanks, > > tglx >