On 2016/9/24 2:26, Jacob Chen wrote:
From: Jacob Chen <jacob2.c...@rock-chips.com>
In some drivers, disable_irq() call don't be symmetric with enable_irq()
, disable_irq() will be called before call free_irq().
Which upstream drivers you refer to?
Shouldn't it be the unbalanced call for these drivers?
But both disable_irq() and free_irq() will call rockchip_irq_gc_mask_set_bit,
and clk_disable() will be called more times than clk_enable(), which will
cause bugs.
I think we can correct that by checking of mask.If mask is already set, do
nothing.
Looks like a little hacky to me.
Change-Id: If19912c7658253e15531c04db6c70fdbffd5960a
remove this.
Signed-off-by: Jacob Chen <jacob2.c...@rock-chips.com>
---
drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-rockchip.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-rockchip.c
b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-rockchip.c
index c6c04ac..9a8804a 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-rockchip.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-rockchip.c
@@ -2334,8 +2334,12 @@ static void rockchip_irq_gc_mask_clr_bit(struct irq_data
*d)
void rockchip_irq_gc_mask_set_bit(struct irq_data *d)
{
struct irq_chip_generic *gc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
+ struct irq_chip_type *ct = irq_data_get_chip_type(d);
struct rockchip_pin_bank *bank = gc->private;
+ if (*ct->mask_cache & d->mask)
+ return;
+
irq_gc_mask_set_bit(d);
clk_disable(bank->clk);
}
--
2.7.4
_______________________________________________
Linux-rockchip mailing list
linux-rockc...@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
--
Best Regards
Shawn Lin
