Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] irqchip: renesas-intc-irqpin: Propagate wake-up settings to parent | From | Grygorii Strashko <> | Date | Wed, 9 Sep 2015 11:43:06 +0300 |
| |
Hi,
On 09/08/2015 11:03 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 8 Sep 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-intc-irqpin.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-intc-irqpin.c >>>> @@ -283,6 +283,9 @@ static int intc_irqpin_irq_set_type(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int type) >>>> static int intc_irqpin_irq_set_wake(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int on) >>>> { >>>> struct intc_irqpin_priv *p = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d); >>>> + int hw_irq = irqd_to_hwirq(d); >>>> + >>>> + irq_set_irq_wake(p->irq[hw_irq].requested_irq, on); >>> >>> Are you sure that this does not make lockdep unhappy due to lock >>> nesting? >> >> Actually I did see one lockdep warning, so I'm aware we're probably gonna >> need a similar solution like commit a0a8bcf4670c2c69 ("gpiolib: irqchip: >> use different lockdep class for each gpio irqchip")? >> >> To be honest, these lockdep warnings aren't helping much here: on embedded >> we typical have several stacked interrupt controllers, so wake-up settings >> have to propagate from the bottom to the top of the stack. > > But ignoring them does not help much either, right? > >> E.g. on sh73a0/kzm9g gpio-keys wake-up goes through 3 interrupt controllers: >> pcf875x -> renesas-intc-irqpin -> gic. > > So, yes a seperate locking class for that intc trainwreck is probably > required. >
Just as an option, May be we can proceed with patch: [PATCH v2 2/6] genirq: fix irqchip_set_wake_parent if IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg121262.html
As result, irq_chip_set_wake_parent() can be used here and no lockdep issues.
Marc, what do you think? renesas-intc-irqpin has own .irq_set_wake() implementation and IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE can't be used here as W/A.
-- regards, -grygorii
| |