On 09/14/2016 03:44 PM, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
On 09/14/2016 03:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
On 09/14/2016 11:19 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
Now what really bugs me is that you do that at all. An interrupt
freed must be masked already. Why is it unmasked in the first place?
Honestly I don't know. When "devm_free_irq" is called to release
is no issue and interrupt is well masked. But, when I tried to use
"irq_dispose_mapping(virq)" I observed that .free is called (child
domain) but interrupt is not masked.
Well, you just used some function in some context which is not
the normal operation. So adding that mask() is just paranoia for no
A gentle reminder ping...
If ".free" callback is not relevant then I 'll remove it from exti domain.
I agree. I just wanted to "force" a test for .free callback. If it not
relevant I'll remove ".free" callback of exti domain.
As a part of this series has already been taken by Linus (pinctrl part),
I will send a new series only for irqchip part (patches  and ). Do
you agree ?
Thanks in advance
linux-arm-kernel mailing list