lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] gpio: zynq: Implement irq_(request|release)_resources
From
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Grygorii Strashko
<grygorii.strashko@ti.com> wrote:
> On 10/27/2015 05:53 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Soren Brinkmann
>> <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The driver uses runtime PM to leverage low power techniques. For
>>> use-cases using GPIO as interrupt the device needs to be in an
>>> appropriate state.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: John Linn <linnj@xilinx.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com>
>>> Tested-by: John Linn <linnj@xilinx.com>
>>
>>
>> As pointed out by Grygorii in
>> commit aca82d1cbb49af34b69ecd4571a0fe48ad9247c1:
>>
>> The PM runtime API can't be used in atomic contex on -RT even if
>> it's configured as irqsafe. As result, below error report can
>> be seen when PM runtime API called from IRQ chip's callbacks
>> irq_startup/irq_shutdown/irq_set_type, because they are
>> protected by RAW spinlock:
>> (...)
>> The IRQ chip interface defines only two callbacks which are executed
>> in
>> non-atomic contex - irq_bus_lock/irq_bus_sync_unlock, so lets move
>> PM runtime calls there.
>>
>> I.e. these calls are atomic context and it's just luck that it works
>> and this is fragile.
>>
>> Can you please check if you can move it to
>> irq_bus_lock()/irq_sync_unlock()
>> like Grygorii does?
>>
>
> This patch rises the question not only about PM runtime, but also
> about gpiochip_irq_reqres()/gpiochip_irq_relres().

Do you mean that these functions contain calls to non-atomic
functions?

I mainly reacted to this because it was pm_* calls, that you
mentioned explicitly in your patch.

Yours,
Linus Walleij


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-10-27 17:41    [W:0.056 / U:0.580 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site