From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Tim Harvey <tharvey@gateworks.com>
Cc: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Carl Philipp Klemm <philipp@uvos.xyz>,
Laxminath Kasam <lkasam@codeaurora.org>,
Merlijn Wajer <merlijn@wizzup.org>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
Sebastian Reichel <sre@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: cpcap: Fix interrupt regression with regmap clear_ack
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2020 21:14:25 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201116211425.GK4739@sirena.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ+vNU3Qrbd8bez+eiHaXrvntqpO_iDM0PSJN_RTAV5W6a7uOw@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 991 bytes --]
On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 12:43:57PM -0800, Tim Harvey wrote:
> What are your thoughts regarding the issue of regmap_irq_sync_unlock
> ack_invert ack'ing by writing ~d->mask_buf[i] which ends up setting
> all the other bits not trying to be awk'd? I would say that the device
> allowing an interrupt status to be 'set' and keeping it from releasing
> its IRQ is strange/broken for sure, but I'll need to work around it
> somehow.
My initial assumption with ack_invert would be that any bits we're not
acking are inverted as well - if we just write 0 to those bits then we
might be spuriously acking them. I'm not sure if there's something that
is being missed with how this hardware is modelled or if it's just a not
entirely thought through hardware design, if I'm understanding it
correctly I can't see anything that can safely be written to the bits we
don't want to ack. Either we cause them to be asserted or we might
clear them incorrectly if we race with that interrupt asserting.
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-16 21:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-11 17:06 Tony Lindgren
2020-11-13 10:21 ` Lee Jones
2020-11-13 22:06 ` Tim Harvey
2020-11-15 8:43 ` Tony Lindgren
2020-11-16 20:45 ` Tim Harvey
2020-11-16 18:59 ` Mark Brown
2020-11-16 20:43 ` Tim Harvey
2020-11-16 21:14 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2020-11-15 17:31 ` Pavel Machek
2020-11-17 8:25 ` Lee Jones
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20201116211425.GK4739@sirena.org.uk \
--to=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkasam@codeaurora.org \
--cc=merlijn@wizzup.org \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=philipp@uvos.xyz \
--cc=sre@kernel.org \
--cc=tharvey@gateworks.com \
--cc=tony@atomide.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®