Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1267082
| From | Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips |
| Date | 2015-11-11 11:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qtAFs-1sW-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <qtipc-6iz-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <qtj1U-6MH-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <qtjuX-6Yy-33@gated-at.bofh.it> <qtkhk-7vy-31@gated-at.bofh.it> <qtlwL-8tw-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 10/11/15 18:07, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > On 11/10/2015 05:47 PM, Grygorii Strashko wrote: > [...] >>> I was trying to simplify matters by placing the resume call in >>> __setup_irq() as opposed to requested_threaded_irq(). However, the would >>> mean the resume is inside the bus_lock and may be I should not assume >>> that I can sleep here. >>> >>>> Can you folks please agree on something which is correct and complete? >>> >>> Soren I am happy to defer to your patch and drop this. My only comment >>> would be what about the request_percpu_irq() path in your patch? >>> >> >> I have the same comment here as I asked Soren: >> 1) There are no restrictions to call irq set_irq_type() whenever, >> as result HW can be accessed before request_x_irq()/__setup_irq(). >> And this is used quite widely now :( >> > > Changing the configuration of a resource that is not owned seems to be > fairly broken. In the worst case this will overwrite the configuration that > was set by owner of the resource. > > Especially those that call irq_set_irq_type() directly before request_irq(), > given that you supply the trigger type to request_irq() which will make sure > that there are no conflicts and the configure. > > This is a bit like calling gpio_set_direction() before you call > gpio_request(), which will also have PM issues. Yes, I agree that this does sound a bit odd, but ... >> For example, during OF boot: >> >> [a] irq_create_of_mapping() >> - irq_create_fwspec_mapping() >> - irq_set_irq_type() The above means that if someone calls of_irq_get() (or platform_get_irq()), before request_irq(), then this will call irq_create_of_mapping() and hence, call irq_set_irq_type. So should irq_create_fwspec_mapping() be setting the type in the first place? I can see it is convenient to do it here. >> or >> irq_set_irq_type(irq, IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH); >> irq_set_chained_handler(irq, mx31ads_expio_irq_handler); >> >> or >> irq_set_irq_type(alarm_irq, IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH); >> err = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, alarm_irq, fan_alarm_irq_handler, >> (there are ~200 occurrences of irq set_irq_type in Kernel) >> >> 2) if i'm not wrong, the same is valid for irq_set_irq_wake() and irq_set_affinity() >> >> I'm not saying all these code is correct, but that what's now in kernel :( >> I've tried to test Soren's patch with omap-gpio and immediately hit case [a] :.( > > All functions for which are part of the public API and for which it is legal > to call them without calling request_irq() (or similar) first will need to > have pm_get()/pm_put(). Right. May be we can look at the various entry points to the chip operators to get a feel for which public APIs need to be handled. Cheers Jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[RFC PATCH 0/2] Add support for Tegra210 AGIC Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2015-11-10 15:40 +0100
[RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2015-11-10 15:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2015-11-10 16:30 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2015-11-10 17:00 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> - 2015-11-10 17:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de> - 2015-11-10 19:10 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2015-11-11 11:20 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> - 2015-11-11 16:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2015-11-12 12:00 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de> - 2015-11-12 14:30 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2015-11-12 14:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de> - 2015-11-12 14:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2015-11-12 15:10 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de> - 2015-11-12 15:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2015-11-12 16:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> - 2015-11-12 14:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de> - 2015-11-12 14:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> - 2015-11-13 19:10 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Sören Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com> - 2015-11-12 18:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org> - 2015-11-13 00:30 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2015-11-13 10:10 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2015-11-13 21:10 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2015-11-16 10:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> - 2015-11-16 10:50 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com> - 2015-11-16 11:40 +0100
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> - 2015-11-16 11:50 +0100
csiph-web