[PATCH v5] PCI: Xilinx NWL: Modifying irq chip for legacy interrupts

[Bharat Kumar Gogada]

Waiting for Marc's Reply...
 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marc Zyngier [mailto:marc.zyngier at arm.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 9:33 PM
> > To: Bharat Kumar Gogada <bharatku at xilinx.com>; bhelgaas at google.com;
> > robh at kernel.org; paul.gortmaker at windriver.com; colin.king at canonical.com;
> > linux-pci at vger.kernel.org
> > Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org;
> > michal.simek at xilinx.com; arnd at arndb.de; Ravikiran Gummaluri
> > <rgummal at xilinx.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] PCI: Xilinx NWL: Modifying irq chip for legacy
> interrupts
> >
> > On 09/02/17 15:16, Bharat Kumar Gogada wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 09/02/17 12:01, Bharat Kumar Gogada wrote:
> > >>>> On 06/02/17 07:03, Bharat Kumar Gogada wrote:
> > >>>>> +static struct irq_chip nwl_leg_irq_chip = {
> > >>>>> +	.name = "nwl_pcie:legacy",
> > >>>>> +	.irq_enable = nwl_unmask_leg_irq,
> > >>>>> +	.irq_disable = nwl_mask_leg_irq,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> You don't need these two if they are implemented in terms of
> > mask/unmask.
> > >>>
> > >>> These are being invoked by some drivers other than interrupt flow.
> > >>> Ex: drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/main.c
> > >>> static int ath_reset_internal(struct ath_softc *sc, struct
> > >>> ath9k_channel *hchan) {
> > >>>          ....
> > >>>          disable_irq(sc->irq);
> > >>>          tasklet_disable(&sc->intr_tq);
> > >>>         ...
> > >>>         ...
> > >>>         enable_irq(sc->irq);
> > >>>         spin_unlock_bh(&sc->sc_pcu_lock); } For us masking/unmasking
> > >>> is the way to enable/disable interrupts.
> > >>
> > >> And if you looked at the way disable_irq is implemented, you would
> > >> have found out that it falls back to masking if there is no disable
> > >> method, preserving the semantic you expect.
> > >>
> > > Yes I did see, but this fall back requires extra "IRQ_DISABLE_UNLAZY" flag to
> > be set to each virq.
> >
> > No it doesn't. If you do a disable_irq(), the interrupt is flagged as disabled, but
> > nothing gets done. If an interrupt actually fires, then the interrupts gets
> masked,
> > and the handler is not called.
> Yes agreed, this is where the problem comes for us. Here is the scenario
> Ex:drivers/net/wireless/ath/ath9k/main.c
> static int ath_reset_internal(struct ath_softc *sc, struct ath9k_channel *hchan)
> {
>   ....
>    ath9k_hw_set_interrupts(ah);
>    ath9k_hw_enable_interrupts(ah);
>    ...
>   enable_irq(sc->irq);
>   ...
> }
> If you observe this they enable hardware interrupts first and then call enable_irq,
> at this point of time
> virq is in disabled state. So, if interrupt is raised in this period of time the handler
> is never invoked
> and DEASEERT_INTx will not be seen. As I mentioned in my subject the irq line
> between bridge and
> GIC goes low only after it sees DEASSERT_INTx. But since DEASSERT_INTx is
> never seen line is always high
> causing cpu stall.
> So for this kind of EP's we need those two methods.
> 
> Bharat