Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Jul 2017 22:15:03 +0200 | From | Sebastian Reichel <> | Subject | Re: [GIT pull] irq updates for 4.13 |
| |
Hi Linus,
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 10:01:22AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 6:35 AM, Sebastian Reichel > <sebastian.reichel@collabora.co.uk> wrote: > > > > This patch apparently breaks OMAP platform: > > > > 46e48e257360f0845fe17089713cbad4db611e70 is the first bad commit > > commit 46e48e257360f0845fe17089713cbad4db611e70 > > Author: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > > Date: Thu Jun 29 23:33:38 2017 +0200 > > > > genirq: Move irq resource handling out of spinlocked region > > > > Boot failure log from Droid 4: > > [ ... snip snip ..] > > > > Droid 4 boots current master again after applying the patch below > > (which is git revet of above patch, but I provide the patch, since > > it did not revet cleanly). > > Hmm. Do you actually need the full revert?
It's technically not a full revert - I actually did not revert the __free_irq changes.
> I think it's only the __setup_irq() part that looks like it may be garbage. > > For example, I think it releases the resources twice if the > __irq_set_trigger() call fails. > > But it looks questionably in other ways too - notably, the change to > make the request call be in the same context as the freeing is done is > apparently done entirely for symmetry reasons, not for any actual > *reason* reasons. > > So I suspect just the __setup_irq() parts should be reverted, because > they look both buggy and pointless. But the actual *real* part of the > patch was the two-liner __free_irq() part, and that looks sane to me. > > So Sebastian, can you test if it's ok to revert just the __setup_irq() > part, but leave the smaller part in __free_irq() that just moves the > irq_release_resources() around at freeing time?
Looking at my patch it implements what you describe (by coincidence, since git revert could not do a clean revert) as far as I can see. It seems Pavel also understood it this way, since his patch is identical to the one I provided.
-- Sebastian [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |