[lkml]   [2007]   [Nov]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH PREEMPT_RT]: On AT91 ARM: GPIO Interrupt handling can/will stall forever
    Hello Russell,

    > If people insist on adding the mask/unmask crap to it, the function
    > might as well be deleted and be an alias for handle_level_IRQ. Because
    > that's _precisely_ what you lot are turning it into.

    First, I want to make clear that I am just debugging a problem on RT
    that does not exist on mainline, and I am trying to find a way to get
    it solved nicely _on RT_, and preferable in a way that it works for
    everybody with the least chance for regression.

    I already mentioned that RT is doing masking in this code during
    normal use, where the mainline kernel does not do this, **except** in
    an error situation.

    I also mentioned that there are 2 ways of solving it on RT:
    1) do not do masking at all, (just as on mainline), and only mask it
    when there is an error (just as on mainline)
    2) Fix it by adding an unmask, which I proposed in my first patch, and
    which others also did in their patches. (not knowing your opinion, as
    I do know)

    Still, I believe, that the fact if a interrupt **can** be masked is
    not a reason to forbid the simple_irq type(), and surely does not make
    it automatically a level type interrupt.
    The interrupt type I talk about is actually edge triggered (the
    interrupt triggers on _BOTH_ edges of the input-line), but there is no
    way of 'acknowledging' the interrupt, which makes the edge type
    handler unsuitable, and much too heavy.
    As mentioned, this type of irq is never pending, and unmasking it will
    never lead to get a interrupt request immediately; the interrupt that
    occurs during the masked time, is just lost.

    So, as far as I can tell , the type really used on at91 for the GPIO
    stuff _is_ a simple_irq as you describe, but one that can be
    masked/unmasked **in case of errors**. It should never be masked
    during normal use.

    So, I propose option 1 to solve it on RT, and thus to trigger Steven
    to NACK my first patch. I will try and see if I can make it work
    _without_ masking on RT (except in case of errors, just as in
    ...and probably add some clear description about the purpose of
    simple_irq, especially related to masking...

    Do you agree on this Russell?

    > Ah, and looking at the changes to the file, the addition of the mask
    > and unmask was done by someone who didn't understand what this was
    > trying to do. So that change should be backed out.

    Maybe he was trying to mask the irq during an error situation?

    Kind regards,

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-11-29 15:21    [W:0.037 / U:1.224 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site