From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S933848AbdGKQT7 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 11 Jul 2017 12:19:59 -0400
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:44948 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S932299AbdGKQT6 (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 11 Jul 2017 12:19:58 -0400
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2017 18:19:55 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
        Sebastian Reichel <sebastian.reichel@collabora.co.uk>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] irq updates for 4.13
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFwDgG6tZeqX7QPwxvwK8MMn_+RSkOgfG_jxzKkzySV6vw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1707111815280.1799@nanos>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1707091044210.2493@nanos> <20170710133505.eo6w73kq2327n34p@earth> <CA+55aFz5=ubNvhTUTzk3kFuLMFToP7xh7h8NDXDor9w+cjsCBA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1707110815440.1799@nanos> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1707110933590.1799@nanos>
 <20170711135131.GW3730@atomide.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1707111636180.1799@nanos> <CA+55aFwDgG6tZeqX7QPwxvwK8MMn_+RSkOgfG_jxzKkzySV6vw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, 11 Jul 2017, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > Ah. Now that makes sense.
> >
> > Unpatched the ordering is:
> >
> >           chip_bus_lock(desc);
> >           irq_request_resources(desc);
> 
> I *looked* at that ordering and then went "Naah, that makes no sense".
> 
> But if that's the only issue, how about we just re-order those things
> - we still don't need to move the irq_request_resources() into the
> spinlock, we just move it to below the chip_bus_lock().
> 
> IOW, something like the (COMPLETELY UNTEESTED!) attached patch.
> 
> This assumes that the chip_bus_lock() thing is still ok for the RT
> case, but it looks like it might be: the only other one I looked at
> (apart from the gpio-omap one) used a mutex.

I looked through all of them and the only special case is gpio-omap.

What I do not understand here is that we have already power management
around all of that.

       irq_chip_pm_get(&desc->irq_data);
       ...
       chip_bus_lock(desc);
       ...
       chip_bus_unlock_sync(desc);
       ...
       irq_chip_pm_put(&desc->irq_data);

So why is that not sufficient and needs extra magic in that GPIO driver?

Thanks,

	tglx