Re: [PATCH 1/3] pinctrl: msm: Really mask level interrupts to prevent latching

[Stephen Boyd]

Quoting Doug Anderson (2018-06-18 16:38:27)
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 4:28 PM, Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Quoting Doug Anderson (2018-06-18 15:43:06)
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> > +        */
> >> > +       if (irqd_get_trigger_type(d) & IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_MASK) {
> >> > +               val &= ~BIT(g->intr_raw_status_bit);
> >> > +               writel(val, pctrl->regs + g->intr_cfg_reg);
> >>
> >> Do you know if it's important to do a 2nd write here, or could this be
> >> combined with the next writel()?
> >
> > I haven't tried combining the writes. It felt safer to keep them split
> > up so that both bits don't toggle at the same time, but I don't know if
> > it actually matters.
> 
> Maybe I'm a glutton for punishment, but I'd say go for it, unless
> someone from Qualcomm says "no way".
> 
> In the very least in the "unmask" case it seems pretty safe.  IMHO if
> re-enabling the "raw" status caused a glitch we'd already be hitting
> problems.  Specifically the glitch would end up getting latched
> (whee!) and then we'd unmask and see the glitch anyway.
> 
> ...and actually for the "mask" case it seems like you've written it
> the less-safe way anyway.  We know that masking can't cause some sort
> of glitch (since that's the old code), but I guess we don't know
> whether disabling the "raw" status could cause a glitch.  To be the
> absolutely safest you'd do the new disable of the "raw" status _after_
> the old masking.  ...but as per above I'd just go whole hog and
> combine them.  :-P
> 
> As with everything I write, feel free to tell me I'm being stupid and
> I'll try to shut up.  ;-)
> 

I've tested it and it seems to work by combining the writes in mask and
unmask. I will resend it with the combination tomorrow or the next day
in case anyone else has comments on this series.