Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] genirq: Add runtime resume/suspend support for IRQ chips
From: Jon Hunter
Date: Wed Nov 11 2015 - 05:13:57 EST
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.
>> irq_set_irq_type(irq, IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH);
>> irq_set_chained_handler(irq, mx31ads_expio_irq_handler);
>> 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.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/