* Tim Harvey <[email protected]> [180228 21:18]: > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:39 AM, Tony Lindgren <[email protected]> wrote: > > * Tim Harvey <[email protected]> [180227 16:07]: > >> When acking irqs we need to take into account the ack-invert case. Without > >> this chips that require 0's to ACK interrupts will never clear the > >> interrupt. > >> > >> I am working on an mfd driver that will use ack-invert and discovered > >> this issue. The only user of ack_invert currently appears to be the > >> motorola-cpcap driver. I'm not clear why that driver doesn't appear > >> affected > >> so I'm cc'ing those involved with that driver for review and testing. > > > > I gave this a quick try and it fails with cpcap. So yeah, you're right, > > it seems we still have the cpcap config wrong. > > > > Tony, > > So you would agree with my findings/patch right? I certainly don't > want to break regmap-irq in general :)
Yes I agree that it breaks now things for me, so if it works for you it seems we're good to go. But I don't want to ack it yet as I'm worried that it gets applied without the cpcap changes which would break things :) > Adding Guo Zeng and Barry Song to the thread as they were the authors > of the ack_invert feature (a650fdd9427f1f5236f83d2d8137bea9b452fa53) > and I'm not clear what happened to the chip they were needing it for. > > > Things do work with the following patch and your patch for cpcap. So > > they should both be applied together as a single patch. > > > > Care to fold in the following change and then repost your patch? > > > > Otherwise we might end up breaking things easily for booting or > > bisect or stable. Or else the patch below needs to be applied first > > to avoid breaking things. > > > > So cpcap needs to write 1's to clear irq's not 0's right? Correct. And I tried to follow what the Motorola kernel tree was doing to configure things but got the configuration wrong but it worked so I never had a reason to doubt it before your patch. > Yes, I can certainly roll in the fix for cpcap if everyone agrees > that's the right move. OK thanks. > I'll wait for some feedback from Mark Brown as well. OK Tony
