On Tue, Dec 01, 2020 at 04:59:21PM +0800, luojiaxing wrote:
>
> On 2020/11/30 19:22, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 05:36:19PM +0800, Luo Jiaxing wrote:
> > > The mask and unmask registers are not configured in dwapb_irq_enable() and
> > > dwapb_irq_disable(). In the following situations, the IRQ will be masked
> > > by
> > > default after the IRQ is enabled:
> > >
> > > mask IRQ -> disable IRQ -> enable IRQ
> > >
> > > In this case, the IRQ status of GPIO controller is inconsistent with it's
> > > irq_data too. For example, in __irq_enable(), IRQD_IRQ_DISABLED and
> > > IRQD_IRQ_MASKED are both clear, but GPIO controller do not perform unmask.
> > Sounds a bit like a papering over the issue which is slightly different.
> > Can you elaborate more, why ->irq_mask() / ->irq_unmask() are not being
> > called?
>
>
> Sure, The basic software invoking process is as follows:
>
> Release IRQ:
> free_irq() -> __free_irq() -> irq_shutdown() ->__irq_disable()
>
> Disable IRQ:
> disable_irq() -> __disable_irq_nosync() -> __disable_irq -> irq_disable ->
> __irq_disable()
>
> As shown before, both will call __irq_disable(). The code of it is as
> follows:
>
> if (irqd_irq_disabled(&desc->irq_data)) {
> if (mask)
> mask_irq(desc);
>
> } else {
> irq_state_set_disabled(desc);
> if (desc->irq_data.chip->irq_disable) {
> desc->irq_data.chip->irq_disable(&desc->irq_data);
> irq_state_set_masked(desc);
> } else if (mask) {
> mask_irq(desc);
> }
> }
>
> Because gpio-dwapb.c provides the hook function of irq_disable,
> __irq_disable() will directly calls chip->irq_disable() instead of
> mask_irq().
>
> For irq_enable(), it's similar and the code is as follows:
>
> if (!irqd_irq_disabled(&desc->irq_data)) {
> unmask_irq(desc);
> } else {
> irq_state_clr_disabled(desc);
> if (desc->irq_data.chip->irq_enable) {
> desc->irq_data.chip->irq_enable(&desc->irq_data);
> irq_state_clr_masked(desc);
> } else {
> unmask_irq(desc);
> }
> }
>
> Similarly, because gpio-dwapb.c provides the hook function of irq_enable,
> irq_enable() will directly calls chip->irq_enable() but does not call
> unmask_irq().
>
>
> Therefore, the current handle is as follows:
>
> API of IRQ: | mask_irq() | disable_irq()
> | enable_irq()
>
> gpio-dwapb.c: | chip->irq_mask() | chip->irq_diable() |
> chip->irq_enable()
>
> I do not know why irq_enable() only calls chip->irq_enable(). However, the
> code shows that irq_enable() clears the disable and masked flags in the
> irq_data state.
>
> Therefore, for gpio-dwapb.c, I thinks ->irq_enable also needs to clear the
> disable and masked flags in the hardware register.
>
Hmm, that sounds like a problem, but the explanation is a bit unclear
to me. AFAICS you are saying that the only callbacks which are
called during the IRQ request/release are the irq_enable(), right? If
so then the only reason why we haven't got a problem reported due to
that so far is that the IRQs actually unmasked by default.
In anyway I'd suggest to join someone from the kernel IRQs-related
subsystem to this discussion to ask their opinion whether the IRQs
setup procedure is supposed to work like you say and the irq_enable
shall actually also unmask IRQs.
Thomas, Jason, Mark, could you give us your comment about the issue?
-Sergey
>
>
>
