[PATCH v5 2/9] drivers: irqchip: Add STM32 external interrupts support

Alexandre Torgue alexandre.torgue at st.com
Tue Sep 20 06:33:49 PDT 2016


On 09/20/2016 02:44 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
>> Thomas,
>> On 09/20/2016 11:51 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Alexandre Torgue wrote:
>>>>> On 09/14/2016 03:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>> Sorry for discussing about the same thing again (and again) but I just want to
>> be sure before sending a new version. As you know I have 2 domains: EXTI
>> domain (parent) and stm32-pinctrl-bank domain (child one).
>> There does it make sens to have ".free" callbacks defined in both domain
>> (actually if I define one for the child domain I have to define also ".free"
>> callback for parent domain (EXTI) as it is hierarchical) ?
>> If ".free" have no chance to be called then I will send a new version by
>> removing .free callbacks (in both domain).
> Free will be called when a interrupt in the child domain is torn down,
> i.e. when irq_domain_free_irqs() is called. And it will be called for both
> domains like the alloc callback is invoked on both domains via
> irq_domain_alloc_irqs().

Thanks Thomas for this clarification (I'm sure now that we need .free 
irq_domain_free_irqs() is called in 2 scenario:
1- when issue occurs in irq_create_fwspec_mapping()
2- when irq_dispose_mapping() is called

Case 2 is the one I tested some times ago. In this case, I need to mask 
interrupts in .free callback of EXTI (parent) domain to avoid spurious 



> Thanks,
> 	tglx

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list