Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:17:00 +0530 | Subject | Re: [Patch V1 1/4] memory: tegra: Add support for mc interrupts | From | Ashish Mhetre <> |
| |
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.
| |