lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] gpio: zynq: Implement irq_(request|release)_resources
From
Date
On 10/27/2015 05:53 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Soren Brinkmann
> <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com> wrote:
>
>> The driver uses runtime PM to leverage low power techniques. For
>> use-cases using GPIO as interrupt the device needs to be in an
>> appropriate state.
>>
>> Reported-by: John Linn <linnj@xilinx.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com>
>> Tested-by: John Linn <linnj@xilinx.com>
>
> As pointed out by Grygorii in
> commit aca82d1cbb49af34b69ecd4571a0fe48ad9247c1:
>
> The PM runtime API can't be used in atomic contex on -RT even if
> it's configured as irqsafe. As result, below error report can
> be seen when PM runtime API called from IRQ chip's callbacks
> irq_startup/irq_shutdown/irq_set_type, because they are
> protected by RAW spinlock:
> (...)
> The IRQ chip interface defines only two callbacks which are executed in
> non-atomic contex - irq_bus_lock/irq_bus_sync_unlock, so lets move
> PM runtime calls there.
>
> I.e. these calls are atomic context and it's just luck that it works
> and this is fragile.
>
> Can you please check if you can move it to
> irq_bus_lock()/irq_sync_unlock()
> like Grygorii does?
>

This patch rises the question not only about PM runtime, but also
about gpiochip_irq_reqres()/gpiochip_irq_relres().


--
regards,
-grygorii


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-10-27 17:41    [W:0.266 / U:0.408 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site