Re: UART/TTY console deadlock

[Tony Lindgren]

* Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxx> [200630 13:06]:
> On (20/06/30 14:22), Petr Mladek wrote:
...

> > > > > @@ -2284,8 +2289,6 @@ int serial8250_do_startup(struct uart_port *port)
> > > > >  		 * allow register changes to become visible.
> > > > >  		 */
> > > > >  		spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);
> > > > > -		if (up->port.irqflags & IRQF_SHARED)
> > > > > -			disable_irq_nosync(port->irq);
> > > > >  
> > > > >  		wait_for_xmitr(up, UART_LSR_THRE);
> > > > >  		serial_port_out_sync(port, UART_IER, UART_IER_THRI);
> > > > > @@ -2297,9 +2300,9 @@ int serial8250_do_startup(struct uart_port *port)
> > > > >  		iir = serial_port_in(port, UART_IIR);
> > > > >  		serial_port_out(port, UART_IER, 0);
> > > > >  
> > > > > -		if (port->irqflags & IRQF_SHARED)
> > > > > -			enable_irq(port->irq);
> > > > >  		spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags);
> > > > > +		if (irq_shared)
> > > > > +			enable_irq(port->irq);
> > > > >  
> > > > >  		/*
> > > > >  		 * If the interrupt is not reasserted, or we otherwise
> > > > 
> > > > I think that it might be safe but I am not 100% sure, sigh.
> > > 
> > > Yeah, I'm not 100%, but I'd give it a try.
> > 
> > I do not feel brave enough to ack it today. But I am all for trying it
> > if anyone more familiar with the code is fine with it.
> 
> I see. Well, I suppose we need Ack-s from tty/serial/8250 maintainers.
> I would not be very happy if _only_ printk people Ack the patch.

This conditional disable for irq_shared does not look nice to me
from the other device point of view :)

Would it be possible to just set up te dummy interrupt handler
for the startup, then change it back afterwards? See for example
omap8250_no_handle_irq().

The other device for irq_shared should be capable of dealing
with spurious interrupts if it's shared.

Regards,

Tony