From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754512AbcITNef (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2016 09:34:35 -0400 Received: from mx07-00178001.pphosted.com ([62.209.51.94]:20795 "EHLO mx07-00178001.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754012AbcITNed (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Sep 2016 09:34:33 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/9] drivers: irqchip: Add STM32 external interrupts support To: Thomas Gleixner References: <1473432124-6784-1-git-send-email-alexandre.torgue@st.com> <1473432124-6784-3-git-send-email-alexandre.torgue@st.com> <6941f61d-0b33-4108-0135-b11887cd0488@st.com> <39c4ceee-7e05-ebfd-2ea0-3c4e1c4ea619@st.com> <053a37f4-aa10-46ea-f477-8ae55bb5773f@st.com> CC: Mark Rutland , , Daniel Thompson , Jason Cooper , , Marc Zyngier , , Linus Walleij , , , Rob Herring , Maxime Coquelin , , From: Alexandre Torgue Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2016 15:33:49 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.48.0.2] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2016-09-20_06:,, signatures=0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Thomas, On 09/20/2016 02:44 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Alexandre Torgue wrote: > >> Thomas, >> >> On 09/20/2016 11:51 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Alexandre Torgue wrote: >>>>> On 09/14/2016 03:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>>>>> Well, you just used some function in some context which is not >>>>>> relevant to >>>>>> the normal operation. So adding that mask() is just paranoia for no >>>>>> value. >>>>> >>>> A gentle reminder ping... >>>> If ".free" callback is not relevant then I 'll remove it from exti domain. >> >> Sorry for discussing about the same thing again (and again) but I just want to >> be sure before sending a new version. As you know I have 2 domains: EXTI >> domain (parent) and stm32-pinctrl-bank domain (child one). >> >> There does it make sens to have ".free" callbacks defined in both domain >> (actually if I define one for the child domain I have to define also ".free" >> callback for parent domain (EXTI) as it is hierarchical) ? >> If ".free" have no chance to be called then I will send a new version by >> removing .free callbacks (in both domain). > > Free will be called when a interrupt in the child domain is torn down, > i.e. when irq_domain_free_irqs() is called. And it will be called for both > domains like the alloc callback is invoked on both domains via > irq_domain_alloc_irqs(). Thanks Thomas for this clarification (I'm sure now that we need .free callbacks). irq_domain_free_irqs() is called in 2 scenario: 1- when issue occurs in irq_create_fwspec_mapping() 2- when irq_dispose_mapping() is called Case 2 is the one I tested some times ago. In this case, I need to mask interrupts in .free callback of EXTI (parent) domain to avoid spurious interrupts. Regards Alex > > Thanks, > > tglx > > > >