Re: [PATCH v5 2/9] drivers: irqchip: Add STM32 external interrupts support

[Alexandre Torgue]

Thomas,

On 09/20/2016 02:44 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
>
> > Thomas,
> >
> > On 09/20/2016 11:51 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
> > > > > On 09/14/2016 03:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > A gentle reminder ping...
> > > > If ".free" callback is not relevant then I 'll remove it from exti domain.
> >
> > Sorry for discussing about the same thing again (and again) but I just want to
> > be sure before sending a new version. As you know I have 2 domains: EXTI
> > domain (parent) and stm32-pinctrl-bank domain (child one).
> >
> > There does it make sens to have ".free" callbacks defined in both domain
> > (actually if I define one for the child domain I have to define also ".free"
> > callback for parent domain (EXTI) as it is hierarchical) ?
> > If ".free" have no chance to be called then I will send a new version by
> > removing .free callbacks (in both domain).
>
> Free will be called when a interrupt in the child domain is torn down,
> i.e. when irq_domain_free_irqs() is called. And it will be called for both
> domains like the alloc callback is invoked on both domains via
> irq_domain_alloc_irqs().

Thanks Thomas for this clarification (I'm sure now that we need .free 
callbacks).
irq_domain_free_irqs() is called in 2 scenario:
1- when issue occurs in irq_create_fwspec_mapping()
2- when irq_dispose_mapping() is called

Case 2 is the one I tested some times ago. In this case, I need to mask 
interrupts in .free callback of EXTI (parent) domain to avoid spurious 
interrupts.

Regards

Alex


> Thanks,
>
> 	tglx