Re: [PATCH v1 41/63] Input: touchscreen: Atmel: Enable IRQ_DISABLE_UNLAZY flag for interrupt

[Jiada Wang <jiada_wang@mentor.com>]

Hi Dmitry

On 2019/08/17 2:26, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 05:35:36PM +0900, Jiada Wang wrote:
>> From: Bhuvanesh Surachari <bhuvanesh_surachari@mentor.com>
>>
>> The de-/serializer driver has defined only irq_mask "ds90ub927_irq_mask" and
>> irq_unmask "ds90ub927_irq_unmask" callback functions. And de-/serializer
>> driver doesn't implement the irq_disable and irq_enable callback functions.
>> Hence inorder to invoke irq_mask callback function when disable_irq_nosync is
>> called the IRQ_DISABLE_UNLAZY interrupt flag should be set. If not the
>> disable_irq_nosync will just increment the depth field in the irq
>> descriptor only once as shown below.
>>
>> disable_irq_nosync
>>   __disable_irq_nosync
>>    __disable_irq (desc->depth++)
>>     irq_disable
>>      if irq_disable present -----------> if IRQ_DISABLE_UNLAZYflag set
>>               |                  no                  |
>>           yes |                                  yes |
>>               |                                      |
>>       desc->irq_data.chip->irq_disable   desc->irq_data.chip->irq_unmask
>>                                           (ds90ub927_irq_mask)
>>                                            disable_irq
>>                                             __disable_irq_nosync
>>                                              __disable_irq
>> (desc->depth++)
>> But the enable_irq will try to decrement the depth field twice which generates
>> the backtrace stating "Unbalanced enable for irq 293". This is because there is
>> no IRQ_DISABLE_UNLAZY flag check while calling irq_unmask callback function
>> of the "ds90ub927_irq_unmask" de-/serializer via enable_irq.
>>
>> enable_irq
>>   __enable_irq (desc->depth--)
>>    irq_enable
>>     if irq_enable present -------------> desc->irq_data.chip->irq_unmask
>>                |                no        (ds90ub927_irq_unmask)
>>            yes |                            enable_irq
>>                |                             __enable_irq (desc->depth--)
>>      (desc->irq_data.chip->irq_enable)
> 
> I'd prefer if we instead did not use the disable_irq_nosync() in the
> driver.
>
sorry for the mistake, during forward port,
I have already eliminated disable_irq_nosync(),
so this patch is no longer needed,
will drop it in v2 patch-set

Thanks，
Jiada

> Thanks.
>