Hi Rafael,
On Tue, 24 Feb 2015 02:02:59 +0100
"Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
> On Friday, February 20, 2015 10:31:44 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > [...]
>
> [cut]
>
> > Given all of the above I'll go back to the IRQF_SHARED_TIMER_OK approach
> > you proposed, along with documentation updates and com
On Friday, February 20, 2015 10:31:44 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
> [...]
[cut]
> Given all of the above I'll go back to the IRQF_SHARED_TIMER_OK approach
> you proposed, along with documentation updates and comments at usage
> sites to make it clear when it is valid to use.
>
> Thank you for bearin
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015 18:14:48 +
Mark Rutland wrote:
[...]
> > This is because irq_may_run [1], which is called to decide whether we
> > should handle this irq or just wake the system up [2], will always
> > return true if at least one of the shared action has tagged the irq
> > line as a wak
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 05:00:57PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> Thanks for the clarification, and sorry if I've been a bit harsh to you
> in my previous answer, but this whole shared irq thing is starting to
> drive me crazy.
No worries. Having lost a few days exploring the core a
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the clarification, and sorry if I've been a bit harsh to you
in my previous answer, but this whole shared irq thing is starting to
drive me crazy.
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 15:16:56 +
Mark Rutland wrote:
[...]
>
> An IRQ cannot be shared between a device with IRQF_NO_SUSPEN
> > * The pmc looks like it could be a valid use of the new flag. It also
> > seems to function as an irqchip.
> >
> > Do any of its child IRQs need to be handled during the suspend-resume
> > cycle? If so using IRQF_NO_SUSPEND would seem to be valid.
>
> No they don't, they are used for
Hi Mark,
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:22:08 +
Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi Boris,
>
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:38:23PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > For the list of impacted drivers, you can have a look at this series [1]
> > (patches 2 to 5), and I'll take care of the testing par
Hi Boris,
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:38:23PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
[...]
> For the list of impacted drivers, you can have a look at this series [1]
> (patches 2 to 5), and I'll take care of the testing part once every one
> has agreed on the solution ;-).
>
> [1]https://lkml.org/lkml/20
[...]
> > > IRQF_NO_SUSPEND and wakeup fundamentally don't match due to the way
> > > wakeup is implemented in the IRQ core now.
> > >
> > > Unless drivers with IRQF_NO_SUSPEND do the wakeup behind the core's back
> > > which is just disgusting and should never happen.
> >
> > I completely agree
On Thursday, February 19, 2015 11:23:46 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 01:16:50AM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Monday, February 16, 2015 12:23:43 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > > The "suspend" part is kind of a distraction to me here, because that
> >
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 01:16:50AM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Monday, February 16, 2015 12:23:43 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > > The "suspend" part is kind of a distraction to me here, because that
> > > > really
> > > > only is about sharing an IRQ with a timer and the "yo
On Monday, February 16, 2015 12:23:43 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> [...]
>
> > > The "suspend" part is kind of a distraction to me here, because that
> > > really
> > > only is about sharing an IRQ with a timer and the "your interrupt handler
> > > may be called when the device is suspended" part is
[...]
> > The "suspend" part is kind of a distraction to me here, because that really
> > only is about sharing an IRQ with a timer and the "your interrupt handler
> > may be called when the device is suspended" part is just a consequence of
> > that.
> >
> > So IMO it's better to have "TIMER" i
Please change the Subject to start with [PATCH] again when including
patches, otherwise its too easy for them to get lost. Esp. with
excessive quoting on top.
I nearly missed the patch here, seeing nothing in the first page of
text.
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 05:13:13PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
>
Guys, trim your emails, please!
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:51:36PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 03:12:38 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > I guess that would have to imply IRQF_SHARED, so we'd have something
> > like:
> >
> > IRQF_SHARED_SUSPEND_OK - This handler is
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:09:17AM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:52:15 +
> Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >
> > > > diff --git a/include/linux/interrupt.h b/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > > > index d9b05b5..2b8ff50 100644
> > > > --- a/include/linux/interrupt.h
> >
On Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:52:15 +
Mark Rutland wrote:
> [...]
>
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/interrupt.h b/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > > index d9b05b5..2b8ff50 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > > @@ -57,6 +57,9 @@
> > > * IRQF_NO_THRE
[...]
> > diff --git a/include/linux/interrupt.h b/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > index d9b05b5..2b8ff50 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/interrupt.h
> > @@ -57,6 +57,9 @@
> > * IRQF_NO_THREAD - Interrupt cannot be threaded
> > * IRQF_EARLY_RESUME - Resume IRQ
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 17:13:13 +
Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:42:22PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 05:15:15 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:20 +
> > > Mark Rutland wrote:
> > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> >
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:38:23PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:32:31 +
> Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:15:15PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:20 +
> > > Mark Rutland wrote:
> > >
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> >
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:42:22PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 05:15:15 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:20 +
> > Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > > > > So for the flag at request time approach to work, all the dri
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:32:31 +
Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:15:15PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:20 +
> > Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > > > > So for the flag at request time approach to work, all the drivers
> > >
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 04:15:15PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:20 +
> Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > > So for the flag at request time approach to work, all the drivers
> > > > > > using
> > > > > > the interrupt would have to flag they're safe i
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 17:42:22 +0100
"Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 05:15:15 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:20 +
> > Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > > > > So for the flag at request time approach to work, all the driver
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 05:15:15 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:20 +
> Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > > So for the flag at request time approach to work, all the drivers
> > > > > > using
> > > > > > the interrupt would have to flag they're safe
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:57:20 +
Mark Rutland wrote:
> [...]
>
> > > > > So for the flag at request time approach to work, all the drivers
> > > > > using
> > > > > the interrupt would have to flag they're safe in that context.
> > > >
> > > > Something like IRQF_"I can share the line with a
[...]
> > > > So for the flag at request time approach to work, all the drivers using
> > > > the interrupt would have to flag they're safe in that context.
> > >
> > > Something like IRQF_"I can share the line with a timer" I guess? That
> > > wouldn't
> > > hurt and can be checked at request
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 03:12:38 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:17:20PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 02:43:45 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > > > > > +static irqreturn_t __handle_irq_event_percpu(unsigned int irq,
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:39:48PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 04:03:17 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:17:20 +0100
> > "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
> >
> > > On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 02:43:45 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > [...]
> >
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 04:03:17 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:17:20 +0100
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 02:43:45 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > > > > > +static irqreturn_t __handle_irq_event_percpu(unsigned int
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:17:20PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 02:43:45 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > > > +static irqreturn_t __handle_irq_event_percpu(unsigned int irq,
> > > > > > > struct irqaction *action)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > +
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 03:07:48PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 02:14:37 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 02:31:18PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:15:17 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:17:20 +0100
"Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 02:43:45 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> > > > > > > +static irqreturn_t __handle_irq_event_percpu(unsigned int irq,
> > > > > > > struct irqaction *action)
> > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > + /*
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 02:43:45 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> [...]
>
> > > > > > +static irqreturn_t __handle_irq_event_percpu(unsigned int irq,
> > > > > > struct irqaction *action)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + /*
> > > > > > +* During suspend we must not call potentially unsafe irq
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 02:14:37 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 02:31:18PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:15:17 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 09:11:59AM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:55:47 +0100
"Rafael J. Wysocki" wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 01:24:37 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:11:06 +
> > Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:53:39AM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > >
[...]
> > > > > +static irqreturn_t __handle_irq_event_percpu(unsigned int irq,
> > > > > struct irqaction *action)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * During suspend we must not call potentially unsafe irq
> > > > > handlers.
> > > > > + * See suspend_suspendable_actions.
>
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 01:24:37 PM Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:11:06 +
> Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:53:39AM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > Hi Mark,
> > >
> > > On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:48:36 +
> > > Mark Rutland wro
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:11:06 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:53:39AM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:48:36 +
> > Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:52:01PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > > Hi
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 02:31:18PM +, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:15:17 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 09:11:59AM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:48:36PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > From f390ccbb31f06efee
On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 08:48:36 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:52:01PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:36:28 +
> > Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Boris,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:33:38AM +, Boris Brezil
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 11:15:17 AM Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 09:11:59AM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:48:36PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > From f390ccbb31f06efee49b4469943c8d85d963bfb5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Mark Rutland
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 01:38:59PM +, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 11/02/2015 at 12:36:56 +, Mark Rutland wrote :
> > > Actually, that was one of the requirements expressed by Thomas (Thomas,
> > > correct me if I'm wrong).
> > > The point was to force shared irq users to explicitly specif
On 11/02/2015 at 12:36:56 +, Mark Rutland wrote :
> > Actually, that was one of the requirements expressed by Thomas (Thomas,
> > correct me if I'm wrong).
> > The point was to force shared irq users to explicitly specify that they
> > are mixing !IRQF_NO_SUSPEND and IRQF_NO_SUSPEND because the
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:24:37PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:11:06 +
> Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:53:39AM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > Hi Mark,
> > >
> > > On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:48:36 +
> > > Mark Rutland wrote
Hi Mark,
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015 11:11:06 +
Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:53:39AM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:48:36 +
> > Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:52:01PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > >
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 09:11:59AM +, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:48:36PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > From f390ccbb31f06efee49b4469943c8d85d963bfb5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Mark Rutland
> > Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:14:33 +
> > Subject: [PATCH] genirq: a
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 08:53:39AM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:48:36 +
> Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:52:01PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > Hi Mark,
> > >
> > > On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:36:28 +
> > > Mark Rutland wrote
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 08:48:36PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> From f390ccbb31f06efee49b4469943c8d85d963bfb5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Mark Rutland
> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:14:33 +
> Subject: [PATCH] genirq: allow mixed IRQF_NO_SUSPEND requests
>
> In some cases a physical IRQ line
Hi Mark,
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 20:48:36 +
Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:52:01PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:36:28 +
> > Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Boris,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:33:38AM +, Boris B
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:52:01PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:36:28 +
> Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > Hi Boris,
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:33:38AM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > Add documentation for the virtual irq demuxer.
> > >
> > > Sig
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:16:00 +
Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:52:01PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:36:28 +
> > Mark Rutland wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Boris,
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:33:38AM +, Boris Brezillon w
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 03:52:01PM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:36:28 +
> Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > Hi Boris,
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:33:38AM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > Add documentation for the virtual irq demuxer.
> > >
> > > Sig
I'm fixing my own answer :-)
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 16:52:01 +0100
Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:36:28 +
> Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> > Hi Boris,
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:33:38AM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > > Add documentation for the virtual irq
Hi Mark,
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:36:28 +
Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi Boris,
>
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:33:38AM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > Add documentation for the virtual irq demuxer.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon
> > Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre
> > ---
> > .../bindings/int
Hi Boris,
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:33:38AM +, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> Add documentation for the virtual irq demuxer.
>
> Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon
> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre
> ---
> .../bindings/interrupt-controller/dumb-demux.txt | 41
> ++
> 1 file changed,
Add documentation for the virtual irq demuxer.
Signed-off-by: Boris Brezillon
Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre
---
.../bindings/interrupt-controller/dumb-demux.txt | 41 ++
1 file changed, 41 insertions(+)
create mode 100644
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/
57 matches
Mail list logo
