Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] irqchip/irq-imx-irqsteer: Get/put PM runtime in ->irq_unmask()/irq_mask() | From | Liu Ying <> | Date | Thu, 09 Jun 2022 21:47:18 +0800 |
| |
On Thu, 2022-06-09 at 12:25 +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > 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?
Yes, you can.
Regards, Liu Ying
| |