Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:55:59 -0500 | From | Rob Herring <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: gic: add OF based initialization |
| |
Benoit,
On 09/21/2011 12:15 PM, Cousson, Benoit wrote: > Hi Rob, > > I'm testing that series with OMAP4 but have some issues for the moment :-( > > [ 0.000000] WARNING: at kernel/irq/irqdomain.c:34 gic_of_init+0x10c/0x180() > [ 0.000000] error: irq_desc already assigned to a domain > [ 0.000000] Modules linked in: > [ 0.000000] [<c001b284>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xf0) from [<c0051c34>] (warn_slowpath_common+0x4c/0x64) > [ 0.000000] [<c0051c34>] (warn_slowpath_common+0x4c/0x64) from [<c0051ce0>] (warn_slowpath_fmt+0x30/0x40) > [ 0.000000] [<c0051ce0>] (warn_slowpath_fmt+0x30/0x40) from [<c05f6874>] (gic_of_init+0x10c/0x180) > [ 0.000000] [<c05f6874>] (gic_of_init+0x10c/0x180) from [<c05fa2e0>] (omap_gic_of_init+0x8/0x28) > [ 0.000000] [<c05fa2e0>] (omap_gic_of_init+0x8/0x28) from [<c0616b44>] (of_irq_init+0x148/0x28c) > [ 0.000000] [<c0616b44>] (of_irq_init+0x148/0x28c) from [<c05f3074>] (init_IRQ+0x14/0x1c) > [ 0.000000] [<c05f3074>] (init_IRQ+0x14/0x1c) from [<c05f0650>] (start_kernel+0x184/0x2fc) > [ 0.000000] [<c05f0650>] (start_kernel+0x184/0x2fc) from [<80008040>] (0x80008040) > > I'm not super familiar with all the irq stuff but I'm wondering if there is not something wrong with the test that print that message: > > void irq_domain_add(struct irq_domain *domain) > { > struct irq_data *d; > int hwirq; > > /* > * This assumes that the irq_domain owner has already allocated > * the irq_descs. This block will be removed when support for dynamic > * allocation of irq_descs is added to irq_domain. > */ > for (hwirq = 0; hwirq < domain->nr_irq; hwirq++) { > d = irq_get_irq_data(irq_domain_to_irq(domain, hwirq)); > if (d || d->domain) { > /* things are broken; just report, don't clean up */ > WARN(1, "error: irq_desc already assigned to a domain"); > return; > } > [...] > > Is the (d || d->domain) correct? Shouldn't it be (d && d->domain)? > > But since that used to work properly, I have some doubt. Moreover the driver will not even get the proper interrupt later... > > Do you have any clue?
I fixed that in the prior series and tglx picked it up, so I did not repost. It should hit mainline for 3.1, but I haven't verified if it is in yet. Sorry for the confusion, I should have mentioned that.
Rob
| |