lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 0/6] irqdomain, gpio: expand irq_domain_push_irq() for DT use and use it for GPIO
    Hi Marc.

    2017-09-07 21:39 GMT+09:00 Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>:
    >> I think there is a possibility where a device tries to get IRQ
    >> after irq_domain_create_hierarchy(), but before irq_domain_push_irq().
    >>
    >> priv->domain = irq_domain_create_hierarchy(...)
    >> if (!priv->domain)
    >> return -ENOMEM;
    >>
    >> [ *** What if a irq consumer device request the irq here? *** ]
    >
    > We've explicitly forbidden such a use case. There is a (not exactly fool
    > proof) check in irq_domain_push_irq(), but it is pretty easy to bypass
    > it. "Don't do it" is the conclusion we reached with David Daney.
    >
    > If you don't want these interrupts to be requested, you might as well
    > flag them as IRQ_NOREQUEST, and unflag them when the hierarchy is ready.
    >
    > Would that work for you?


    Sorry if my description was unclear.

    I do not think IRQ_NOREQUEST is equivalent
    to IRQ_DOMAIN_FLAG_NO_CREATE I am trying to add in 5/6.


    My intention is to prevent platform_get_irq()
    from allocating a new virq.

    I think IRQ_NOREQUEST only affects request_irq().



    Having said that, this series got negative response
    as a whole.

    My motivation is to get my GPIO driver (6/6) in
    by hook or by crook.
    If you do not like this series, please feel free to throw it away.




    --
    Best Regards
    Masahiro Yamada

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2017-09-08 17:08    [W:4.326 / U:0.416 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site