Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 17 May 2015 10:25:54 +0200 | Subject | Calling irq_set_irq_wake() from .set_irq_wake()? (was: Re: [PATCH] gpio: pcf875x: Revert "gpio: pcf857x: Propagate wake-up setting to parent irq controller") | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> |
| |
Hi Grygorii, Thomas, Ingo,
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Grygorii.Strashko@linaro.org <grygorii.strashko@linaro.org> wrote: > On 05/11/2015 08:36 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Roger Quadros <rogerq@ti.com> wrote: >>> commit b80eef95beb0 ('gpio: pcf857x: Propagate wake-up setting to parent irq controller') >>> introduces the following recursive locking warning while suspending dra7-evm. >>> >>> The issue addressed by that commit has been already resolved by >>> commit 10a50f1ab5f0 ('genirq: Set IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE flag for dummy_irq_chip') >> >> That's not 100% correct: commit b80eef95beb0 ('gpio: pcf857x: Propagate wake-up >> setting to parent irq controller') fixes _two_ things: >> 1. warning due to missing irq_set_wake / IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE, >> 2. propagating set_wake, so the parent interrupt controller stays awake, as >> it's needed for wake-up, >> >> Only the first issue is addressed by commit 10a50f1ab5f0 ('genirq: Set >> IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE flag for dummy_irq_chip'). >> >>> and so let's revert commit b80eef95beb0 ('gpio: pcf857x: Propagate wake-up setting to parent irq controller') >>> >>> At least the recursive locking message no longer appears after the revert. >>> >>> [ 30.591905] PM: Syncing filesystems ... done. >>> [ 30.623060] Freezing user space processes ... (elapsed 0.003 seconds) done. >>> [ 30.634470] Freezing remaining freezable tasks ... (elapsed 0.002 seconds) done. >>> [ 30.658288] sd 0:0:0:0: [sda] Synchronizing SCSI cache >>> [ 30.663678] >>> [ 30.663681] ============================================= >>> [ 30.663683] [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ] >>> [ 30.663688] 4.1.0-rc3 #1115 Not tainted >>> [ 30.663693] --------------------------------------------- >>> [ 30.663697] suspend.sh/2319 is trying to acquire lock: >>> [ 30.663719] (class){......}, at: [<c0096ebc>] __irq_get_desc_lock+0x48/0x88 >>> [ 30.663722] >>> [ 30.663722] but task is already holding lock: >>> [ 30.663734] (class){......}, at: [<c0096ebc>] __irq_get_desc_lock+0x48/0x88 >> >> Does this mean .set_irq_wake() cannot call irq_set_irq_wake()? >> Many GPIO drivers do that, as they need to propagate wake-up state to the >> parent interrupt controller? > > As I remember, there was similar problem, so I found corresponding patch (just FYI) > > ab2b926 mfd: Fix twl6030 lockdep recursion warning on setting wake IRQs > > Not sure such kind of solution is the best choice (
That looks like a convoluted solution...
Thomas, Ingo, can you please chime in w.r.t. calling irq_set_irq_wake() from .set_irq_wake()?
The thread starts at http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-gpio/msg05844.html
Thanks!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
| |