Hi Thomas,
On 10/11/15 15:26, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Jon,
>
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> void (*irq_suspend)(struct irq_data *data);
>> void (*irq_resume)(struct irq_data *data);
>> + int (*irq_runtime_suspend)(struct irq_data *data);
>> + int (*irq_runtime_resume)(struct irq_data *data);
>> void (*irq_pm_shutdown)(struct irq_data *data);
>
> So this is the second patch within a few days which adds that just
> with different names:
>
> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1446668160-17522-2-git-send-email-soren.brinkm...@xilinx.com
>
> Can you folks please tell me which of the names is the correct one?
Sorry. I was unaware of that patch.
>> +/* Inline functions for support of irq chips that require runtime pm */
>> +static inline int chip_runtime_resume(struct irq_desc *desc)
>> +{
>> + if (!desc->irq_data.chip->irq_runtime_resume)
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + return desc->irq_data.chip->irq_runtime_resume(&desc->irq_data);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline int chip_runtime_suspend(struct irq_desc *desc)
>> +{
>> + if (!desc->irq_data.chip->irq_runtime_suspend)
>> + return 0;
>> +
>> + return desc->irq_data.chip->irq_runtime_suspend(&desc->irq_data);
>
> We really don't need a return value for that one.
Ok.
>> +}
>> +
>> #define _IRQ_DESC_CHECK (1 << 0)
>> #define _IRQ_DESC_PERCPU (1 << 1)
>>
>> diff --git a/kernel/irq/manage.c b/kernel/irq/manage.c
>> index 0eebaeef317b..66e33df73140 100644
>> --- a/kernel/irq/manage.c
>> +++ b/kernel/irq/manage.c
>> @@ -1116,6 +1116,10 @@ __setup_irq(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc *desc,
>> struct irqaction *new)
>> if (!try_module_get(desc->owner))
>> return -ENODEV;
>>
>> + ret = chip_runtime_resume(desc);
>> + if (ret < 0)
>> + return ret;
>
> Leaks module ref count.
Ok.
>> +
>> new->irq = irq;
>>
>> /*
>> @@ -1393,6 +1397,7 @@ out_thread:
>> put_task_struct(t);
>> }
>> out_mput:
>> + chip_runtime_suspend(desc);
>> module_put(desc->owner);
>> return ret;
>> }
>> @@ -1506,6 +1511,7 @@ static struct irqaction *__free_irq(unsigned int irq,
>> void *dev_id)
>> }
>> }
>>
>> + chip_runtime_suspend(desc);
>> module_put(desc->owner);
>> kfree(action->secondary);
>> return action;
>> @@ -1792,6 +1798,7 @@ static struct irqaction *__free_percpu_irq(unsigned
>> int irq, void __percpu *dev_
>>
>> unregister_handler_proc(irq, action);
>>
>> + chip_runtime_suspend(desc);
>
> Where is the corresponding call in request_percpu_irq() ?
I was trying to simplify matters by placing the resume call in
__setup_irq() as opposed to requested_threaded_irq(). However, the would
mean the resume is inside the bus_lock and may be I should not assume
that I can sleep here.
> Can you folks please agree on something which is correct and complete?
Soren I am happy to defer to your patch and drop this. My only comment
would be what about the request_percpu_irq() path in your patch?
Cheers
Jon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
