From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753018AbbGFP32 (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jul 2015 11:29:28 -0400 Received: from muru.com ([72.249.23.125]:33373 "EHLO muru.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751119AbbGFP3Z (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Jul 2015 11:29:25 -0400 Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 08:29:21 -0700 From: Tony Lindgren To: Grygorii Strashko Cc: Linus Walleij , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: single: ensure pcs irq will not be forced threaded Message-ID: <20150706152921.GM10705@atomide.com> References: <1436195617-24003-1-git-send-email-grygorii.strashko@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1436195617-24003-1-git-send-email-grygorii.strashko@ti.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Grygorii Strashko [150706 08:16]: > The PSC IRQ is requested using request_irq() API and as result it can > be forced to be threaded IRQ in RT-Kernel if PCS_QUIRK_HAS_SHARED_IRQ > is enabled for pinctrl domain. > > As result, following 'possible irq lock inversion dependency' report > can be seen: ... > To fix it use IRQF_NO_THREAD to ensure that pcs irq will not be forced threaded. > > Cc: Tony Lindgren > Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior > Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko > --- > drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c > index b2de09d..0b8d480 100644 > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-single.c > @@ -1760,7 +1760,8 @@ static int pcs_irq_init_chained_handler(struct pcs_device *pcs, > int res; > > res = request_irq(pcs_soc->irq, pcs_irq_handler, > - IRQF_SHARED | IRQF_NO_SUSPEND, > + IRQF_SHARED | IRQF_NO_SUSPEND | > + IRQF_NO_THREAD, > name, pcs_soc); > if (res) { > pcs_soc->irq = -1; Looks OK to me. The only case this would be a problem if a system has a huge number of wake-up events as the list of status registers to check could grow to the number of GPIO pins in theory. Anyways, feel free to add: Acked-by: Tony Lindgren