Hi Marc,

On Mon, 20 Sept 2021 at 18:45, Marc Zyngier [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

+static void ssd20xd_gpi_unmask_irq(struct irq_data *data)
+{
+     irq_hw_number_t hwirq = irqd_to_hwirq(data);
+     struct ssd20xd_gpi *gpi = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data);
+     int offset_reg = REG_OFFSET(hwirq);
+     int offset_bit = BIT_OFFSET(hwirq);
+
+     regmap_update_bits(gpi->regmap, REG_MASK + offset_reg, offset_bit, 0);

Is this regmap call atomic? When running this, you are holding a
raw_spinlock already. From what I can see, this is unlikely to work
correctly with the current state of regmap.

I didn't even think about it. I will check.

quoted

+static void ssd20x_gpi_chainedhandler(struct irq_desc *desc)
+{
+     struct ssd20xd_gpi *intc = irq_desc_get_handler_data(desc);
+     struct irq_chip *chip = irq_desc_get_chip(desc);
+     unsigned int irqbit, hwirq, virq, status;
+     int i;
+
+     chained_irq_enter(chip, desc);
+
+     for (i = 0; i < NUM_IRQ / IRQS_PER_REG; i++) {
+             int offset_reg = STRIDE * i;
+             int offset_irq = IRQS_PER_REG * i;
+
+             regmap_read(intc->regmap, REG_STATUS + offset_reg, &status);

Does this act as an ACK in the HW?

Not that I'm aware of. The status registers have the interrupt bits
set until the EOI callback is called from what I can tell.
Technically I think the EOI callback should actually be ACK instead
but from my fuzzy memory with the stack of IRQ controllers that
resulted in a null pointer dereference.

quoted

+
+             while (status) {
+                     irqbit = __ffs(status);
+                     hwirq = offset_irq + irqbit;
+                     virq = irq_find_mapping(intc->domain, hwirq);
+                     if (virq)
+                             generic_handle_irq(virq);

Please replace this with generic_handle_domain_irq().

Ok.

quoted

+IRQCHIP_DECLARE(ssd20xd_gpi, "sstar,ssd20xd-gpi", ssd20xd_gpi_of_init);

Is there any reason why this isn't a standard platform device? In
general, irqchips that are not part of the root hierarchy shouldn't
need this anymore.

Nope. I can switch that over.

Cheers,

Daniel

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