lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Dec]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1] gpio: dwapb: mask/unmask IRQ when disable/enable it
Hi Thomas

On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 09:09:09AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 05 2020 at 22:58, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > Sorry for top posting but I need the help of the irqchip maintainer
> > Marc Z to hash this out.
> >
> > The mask/unmask/disable/enable semantics is something that
> > you need to work with every day to understand right.
>
> The patch is correct.
>
> The irq_enable() callback is required to be a superset of
> irq_unmask(). I.e. the core code expects it to do:
>
> 1) Some preparatory work to enable the interrupt line
>
> 2) Unmask the interrupt, which is why the masked state is cleared
> by the core after invoking the irq_enable() callback.
>
> #2 is pretty obvious because if an interrupt chip does not implement the
> irq_enable() callback the core defaults to irq_unmask()
>
> Correspondingly the core expects from the irq_disable() callback:
>
> 1) To mask the interrupt
>
> 2) To do some extra work to disable the interrupt line
>
> Same reasoning as above vs. #1 as the core fallback is to invoke the
> irq_unmask() callback when the irq_disable() callback is not
> implemented.

Just curious. Wouldn't that be more correct/portable for the core to
call both callbacks when it's required and if both are provided? So
the supersetness requirement would be no longer applied to the
IRQ enable/disable callbacks implementation thus avoiding the code
duplications in the low-level drivers.

-Serge(y)

>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-12-15 11:25    [W:0.097 / U:0.688 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site