lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] net: phy: Move interrupt check from phy_check to phy_interrupt
Thanks for the feedback, Sergei.

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 10:41:04PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On 03/08/2018 01:50 AM, Brad Mouring wrote:
>
> > If multiple phys share the same interrupt (e.g. a multi-phy chip),
> > the first device registered is the only one checked as phy_interrupt
> > will always return IRQ_HANDLED if the first phydev is not halted.
> > Move the interrupt check into phy_interrupt and, if it was not this
> > phydev, return IRQ_NONE to allow other devices on this irq a chance
> > to check if it was their interrupt.
>
> Hm, looking at kernel/irq/handle.c, all registered IRQ handlers are always
> called regardless of their results. Care to explain?

In the phy interrupt handler case, the phy_interrupt function is
registered as the threaded secondary, and irq_default_primary_handler
is being used as the primary (which will turn around and wake the
threaded handler). It seems that we wake the thread_fns in order, and
the first to report back HANDLED stops us from waking the next.

> > Signed-off-by: Brad Mouring <brad.mouring@ni.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/net/phy/phy.c | 16 ++++++----------
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/net/phy/phy.c b/drivers/net/phy/phy.c
> > index e3e29c2b028b..ff1aa815568f 100644
> > --- a/drivers/net/phy/phy.c
> > +++ b/drivers/net/phy/phy.c
> > @@ -632,6 +632,12 @@ static irqreturn_t phy_interrupt(int irq, void *phy_dat)
> > if (PHY_HALTED == phydev->state)
> > return IRQ_NONE; /* It can't be ours. */
> >
> > + if (phy_interrupt_is_valid(phydev)) {
>
> Always true in this context, no?

Yes, already noted.

> > + if (phydev->drv->did_interrupt &&
> > + !phydev->drv->did_interrupt(phydev))
>
> I don't think we can do this in the interrupt context as this function *will*
> read from MDIO... I think that was the reason why IRQ handling is done in the
> thread context...

phy_interrupt is the thread_fn here. We're not in interrupt context.

> > + return IRQ_NONE;
> > + }
> > +
> > phy_change(phydev);
> >
> > return IRQ_HANDLED;
> [...]
>
> MBR, Sergei

Thanks,
Brad

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-08 21:17    [W:0.090 / U:1.184 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site