lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [May]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v16 3/7] soc: mediatek: SVS: introduce MTK SVS engine
From
Date
On Thu, 2021-05-13 at 20:33 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 5/13/21 8:10 PM, Roger Lu wrote:
> > Hi Guenter,
> >
> > Sorry for the late reply and thanks for the notice.
> >
> > On Wed, 2021-05-05 at 21:51 -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 02:54:36PM +0800, Roger Lu wrote:
> > > > The Smart Voltage Scaling(SVS) engine is a piece of hardware
> > > > which calculates suitable SVS bank voltages to OPP voltage
> > > > table.
> > > > Then, DVFS driver could apply those SVS bank voltages to
> > > > PMIC/Buck
> > > > when receiving OPP_EVENT_ADJUST_VOLTAGE.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Roger Lu <roger.lu@mediatek.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/soc/mediatek/Kconfig | 10 +
> > > > drivers/soc/mediatek/Makefile | 1 +
> > > > drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-svs.c | 1723
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 3 files changed, 1734 insertions(+)
> > > > create mode 100644 drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-svs.c
> > > >
> > >
> > > [ ... ]
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > + svsp_irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(svsp->dev->of_node, 0);
> > > > + ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(svsp->dev, svsp_irq,
> > > > NULL,
> > > > svs_isr,
> > > > + svsp->irqflags, svsp-
> > > > >name,
> > > > svsp);
> > >
> > > 0-day reports:
> > >
> > > drivers/soc/mediatek/mtk-svs.c:1663:7-32: ERROR:
> > > Threaded IRQ with no primary handler requested without
> > > IRQF_ONESHOT
> > >
> > > I would be a bit concerned about this. There is no primary (hard)
> > > interrupt handler, meaning the hard interrupt may be re-enabled
> > > after
> > > the default hard interrupt handler runs. This might result in
> > > endless
> > > interrupts.
> >
> > Oh, we add IRQF_ONESHOT in "svs_get_svs_mt8183_platform_data()" for
> > threaded irq. So, please kindly let us know if we need to set more
> > flags or any other potential risks we should be aware. Thanks in
> > advance.
> >
>
> After reviewing the code, I think this was actually a false alarm,
> at least if svsp->irqflags always includes IRQF_ONESHOT.
> The code is kind of unusual, though. Unless I am missing something,
> svsp->irqflags is only set in one place and it is always set
> to IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW | IRQF_ONESHOT. If there is a remote chance
> that the flag is ever different, it would have been better (and less
> confusing) to specify IRQF_ONESHOT directly when requesting the
> interrupt (because it is always needed, no matter which SOC).
> If the flags are always the same, there is no reason for having
> the svsp->irqflags variable in the first place.

Thanks for the advice. We still need svsp->irqflags for customizing
different SoC requirement as [1] and I'll specify IRQF_ONESHOT directly
as [2] in the next version.

[1]
mt8183 setting: svsp->irqflags = IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW | IRQF_ONESHOT;
mt8192 setting: svsp->irqflags = IRQF_TRIGGER_HIGH | IRQF_ONESHOT;
https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/1419309/ (mt8192)

[2]
ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(svsp->dev, svsp_irq, NULL, svs_isr,
svsp->irqflags | IRQF_ONESHOT,
svsp->name, svsp);
>
> Thanks,
> Guenter
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-05-14 07:59    [W:0.043 / U:0.840 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site