Hi Thomas,

On 09/14/2016 03:44 PM, Alexandre Torgue wrote:

On 09/14/2016 03:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Alexandre Torgue wrote:

quoted

On 09/14/2016 11:19 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

quoted

Now what really bugs me is that you do that at all. An interrupt
which is
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
virq, there
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
and parent
domain) but interrupt is not masked.

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.

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 [1] and [2]). Do
you agree ?

Thanks in advance
Alex

Thanks
Alex

quoted

Thanks,

    tglx

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel