lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jan]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [Patch V1 1/4] memory: tegra: Add support for mc interrupts
From


On 1/12/2022 1:43 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> 11.01.2022 21:45, Ashish Mhetre пишет:
>>
>> @@ -765,16 +768,21 @@ static int tegra_mc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> return err;
>> }
>>
>> - if (mc->soc->ops && mc->soc->ops->handle_irq) {
>> + if (mc->soc->interrupt_ops && mc->soc->interrupt_ops->handle_irq) {
>> mc->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>> if (mc->irq < 0)
>> return mc->irq;
>>
>> WARN(!mc->soc->client_id_mask, "missing client ID mask for this SoC\n");
>>
>> + /* clear any mc-errs that occurred before. */
>
> s/mc-errs/Memory Controller errors/
>
Sure, I'll update these in next version.
>> + if (mc->soc->interrupt_ops->clear_interrupt)
>> + mc->soc->interrupt_ops->clear_interrupt(mc);
>
> There is no explanation of this change neither in the code, nor in the
> commit message. Please always provide detailed descriptions for a
> non-trivial changes.
>
> Interrupts aren't cleared intentionally by the driver, otherwise you'll
> never know about early-boot memory faults which happened before the
> probe. Hence this change is incorrect.
That's true, we should be logging early-boot memory faults as well.
Ideally there shouldn't be any early-boot faults as all clients will
be up after MC, right? But I agree that we should be checking and
logging if any interrupt is present.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-01-19 09:48    [W:0.111 / U:0.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site