From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D1EFC10F0E for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 02:20:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 373862082E for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2019 02:20:55 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1554862855; bh=f28MH2lJ5p3lrlUegVvu0keFjVwQ1/gHvgoKScPAJSs=; h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:List-ID:From; b=vBXsQbiuIqOzcLbvn1UolFXNhRf43G2nv8AiHxg52QSFF2NvU0fVtcVXZRm3nHA0m /CXqpMMvChcEIhaINTeArH47rBSLYxpzDkkpMsKJBZUUzLfiRewJkKeRPIhUOikFX2 5eL9EED8EtNagT4qcw8tMIL28H6oc4HTbnD9ebcw= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727272AbfDJCUx (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Apr 2019 22:20:53 -0400 Received: from mail-lj1-f173.google.com ([209.85.208.173]:41924 "EHLO mail-lj1-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726930AbfDJCUx (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Apr 2019 22:20:53 -0400 Received: by mail-lj1-f173.google.com with SMTP id k8so575673lja.8 for ; Tue, 09 Apr 2019 19:20:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux-foundation.org; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=pLSNy3bJVp7BVkl1lok4xvwCW7Pgx33X0n0klEhHpDY=; b=R/yJ0NqvG2dizompCKzG3qNxsiQbuNUrBTTXiRnFNdf3JI8lEtwd1xtH/hDURLbE1p V7ODjFobkMGn6g/4qihlqUe+K0HczVWL6o4Ok3UECfNv03El/Pug+ROR5m6kT7qt0gSH iIv/8/0OJzKa7ZJKMxJ18a/bY5a1ry5OzHkZE= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=pLSNy3bJVp7BVkl1lok4xvwCW7Pgx33X0n0klEhHpDY=; b=bN2jBunAJEE5220BcHiFrZmG8tFfOVWQsiAaPLu//Uo4IyEFLUBjV+k0CnPv9xvZy0 dm8BUHyoenHiVt43UTQRaBntsmHOf8DmCRwm+q24NuhDVW3Xvaer+uATPwosjYJIIHfL TZgjKL1C3Q+iP/ZVNNgbZD6udvKGQZ+dukR7+Hhlq7b2Lef2eqo0wmk/9e9Up7RFGgsm k7XOVFjXheH2qvDQ0TvpHFNMczyIreF7HzUemAzkh8AuN0WEdURth4aBnESbfIX6jJBD Hu1smZmwShK4NEkNxYUyuRPnzFCDroYKcAHMGbIiaix4TkkLAI1pOId8D4D7olw1/oPH yPEQ== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAU6jWWffxt9ACQUUOcoFtoBhb0DH/jDCnMw8YgadXmHC1GYUchs 3SsUnoY6nzRMtj6k+EIQjrshk73YiFg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwHaBux0nrmPOTI4Qh7OK1X4ZqDiYKXnXU1BItP/8A9mJZoBnZ773HbE8gB/qgsBafIyDOTfA== X-Received: by 2002:a2e:99d2:: with SMTP id l18mr20918526ljj.27.1554862850340; Tue, 09 Apr 2019 19:20:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lj1-f176.google.com (mail-lj1-f176.google.com. [209.85.208.176]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u17sm7386911lfu.63.2019.04.09.19.20.49 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 09 Apr 2019 19:20:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-lj1-f176.google.com with SMTP id r24so600541ljg.3 for ; Tue, 09 Apr 2019 19:20:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8108:: with SMTP id d8mr20942979ljg.57.1554862848913; Tue, 09 Apr 2019 19:20:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190409184917.65062-1-briannorris@chromium.org> In-Reply-To: <20190409184917.65062-1-briannorris@chromium.org> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 16:20:33 -1000 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PULL -- 5.1 REGRESSION] Bluetooth: btusb: request wake pin with NOAUTOEN To: Brian Norris Cc: Marcel Holtmann , Johan Hedberg , linux-bluetooth , Linux List Kernel Mailing , Matthias Kaehlcke , Rajat Jain , Heiko Stuebner Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 8:49 AM Brian Norris wrote: > > Badly-designed systems might have (for example) active-high wake pins > that default to high (e.g., because of external pull ups) until they > have an active firmware which starts driving it low. This can cause an > interrupt storm in the time between request_irq() and disable_irq(). Why is the fix not to move the request_irq() down to below the proper initialization sequence? That's what drivers *should* do: initialize their hardware first, request interrupts only after that. Initializing the interrupt handler before the hw is actually up seems wrong.. Linus