Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 09 Jun 2022 12:25:16 +0100 | From | Marc Zyngier <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] irqchip/irq-imx-irqsteer: Get/put PM runtime in ->irq_unmask()/irq_mask() |
| |
On Thu, 09 Jun 2022 02:41:55 +0100, Liu Ying <victor.liu@nxp.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 2022-06-08 at 14:54 +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 13:02:46 +0100, > > Lucas Stach <l.stach@pengutronix.de> wrote: > > > > > > Am Mittwoch, dem 08.06.2022 um 19:29 +0800 schrieb Liu Ying: > > > > On Wed, 2022-06-08 at 12:56 +0200, Lucas Stach wrote: > > > > > Am Mittwoch, dem 08.06.2022 um 18:50 +0800 schrieb Liu Ying: > > > > > > Now that runtime PM support was added in this driver, we have > > > > > > to enable power before accessing irqchip registers. And, > > > > > > after > > > > > > the access is done, we should disable power. This patch > > > > > > calls > > > > > > pm_runtime_get_sync() in ->irq_unmask() and pm_runtime_put() > > > > > > in > > > > > > ->irq_mask() to make sure power is managed for the register > > > > > > access. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you tell me in which case this is necessary? IIRC the IRQ > > > > > core > > > > > > > > With the i.MX8qxp DPU driver[1], I see below synchronous external > > > > abort: > > > > > > > > [ 1.207270] Internal error: synchronous external abort: > > > > 96000210 > > > > [#1] PREEMPT SMP > > > > [ 1.207287] Modules linked in: > > > > [ 1.207299] CPU: 1 PID: 64 Comm: kworker/u8:2 Not tainted > > > > 5.18.0- > > > > rc6-next-20220509-00053-gf01f74ee1c18 #272 > > > > [ 1.207311] Hardware name: Freescale i.MX8QXP MEK (DT) > > > > [ 1.207319] Workqueue: events_unbound deferred_probe_work_func > > > > [ 1.207339] pstate: 400000c5 (nZcv daIF -PAN -UAO -TCO -DIT > > > > -SSBS > > > > BTYPE=--) > > > > [ 1.207349] pc : imx_irqsteer_irq_unmask+0x48/0x80 > > > > [ 1.207360] lr : imx_irqsteer_irq_unmask+0x38/0x80 > > > > [ 1.207368] sp : ffff80000a88b900 > > > > [ 1.207372] x29: ffff80000a88b900 x28: ffff8000080fed90 x27: > > > > ffff8000080fefe0 > > > > [ 1.207388] x26: ffff8000080fef40 x25: ffff0008012538d4 x24: > > > > ffff8000092fe388 > > > > [ 1.207407] x23: 0000000000000001 x22: ffff0008013295b4 x21: > > > > ffff000801329580 > > > > [ 1.207425] x20: ffff0008003faa60 x19: 000000000000000e x18: > > > > 0000000000000000 > > > > [ 1.207443] x17: 0000000000000003 x16: 0000000000000162 x15: > > > > 0000000000000001 > > > > [ 1.207459] x14: 0000000000000002 x13: 0000000000000018 x12: > > > > 0000000000000040 > > > > [ 1.207477] x11: ffff000800682480 x10: ffff000800682482 x9 : > > > > ffff80000a072678 > > > > [ 1.207495] x8 : ffff0008006a64a8 x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : > > > > ffff0008006a6608 > > > > [ 1.207513] x5 : ffff800009070a18 x4 : 0000000000000000 x3 : > > > > ffff80000b240000 > > > > [ 1.207529] x2 : ffff80000b240038 x1 : 00000000000000c0 x0 : > > > > 00000000000000c0 > > > > [ 1.207549] Call trace: > > > > [ 1.207553] imx_irqsteer_irq_unmask+0x48/0x80 > > > > [ 1.207562] irq_enable+0x40/0x8c > > > > [ 1.207575] __irq_startup+0x78/0xa4 > > > > [ 1.207588] irq_startup+0x78/0x16c > > > > [ 1.207601] irq_activate_and_startup+0x38/0x70 > > > > [ 1.207612] __irq_do_set_handler+0xcc/0x1e0 > > > > [ 1.207626] irq_set_chained_handler_and_data+0x58/0xa0 > > > > > > Ooh, I think this is the problem. The IRQ is not requested in the > > > usual > > > way when a chained handler is added, so this might bypass the > > > runtime > > > PM handling normally done in the IRQ core. In that case this is a > > > core > > > issue and should not be worked around in the driver, but the core > > > should take the RPM reference for the chained handler, just like it > > > does for normal IRQs. > > > > Well spotted. Could you please give the hack below (compile-tested > > only) a go? > > I don't see the splat after your patch is applied.
Can I take this as a formal "Tested-by:" tag?
Thanks,
M.
-- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
| |