On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Alexandre Torgue wrote: > On 09/14/2016 11:19 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > 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. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
