On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Fabien DESSENNE <fabien.dessenne@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On 06/04/18 18:20, Jassi Brar wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 8:35 PM, Fabien DESSENNE <fabien.dessenne@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 06/04/18 14:56, Jassi Brar wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Fabien DESSENNE <fabien.dessenne@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 05/04/18 11:38, Jassi Brar wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:28 PM, Fabien Dessenne <fabien.dessenne@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> ....
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + /* irq */
>>>>>>> + for (i = 0; i < IPCC_IRQ_NUM; i++) {
>>>>>>> + ipcc->irqs[i] = of_irq_get_byname(dev->of_node, irq_name[i]);
>>>>>>> + if (ipcc->irqs[i] < 0) {
>>>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "no IRQ specified %s\n", irq_name[i]);
>>>>>>> + ret = ipcc->irqs[i];
>>>>>>> + goto err_clk;
>>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, ipcc->irqs[i], NULL,
>>>>>>> + irq_thread[i], IRQF_ONESHOT,
>>>>>>> + dev_name(dev), ipcc);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> In your interrupt handlers you don't do anything that could block.
>>>>>> Threads only adds some delay to your message handling.
>>>>>> So maybe use devm_request_irq() ?
>>>>> The interrupt handlers call mbox_chan_received_data() /
>>>>> mbox_chan_txdone(), which call in turn client's rx_callback() /
>>>>> tx_done() / tx_prepare() which behavior may be unsafe. Hence, using a
>>>>> threaded irq here seems to be a good choice.
>>>>>
>>>> rx_callback() is supposed to be atomic.
>>> I am worried with this atomic part (and honestly I did not note that the
>>> callbacks were expected to be)
>>>
>>> In my case, remoteproc->virtio->rpmsg is the mailbox client defining the
>>> rx_callback.
>>> If I follow your suggestion, I shall make this rx_callback Atomic in
>>> remoteproc (or in virtio or rpmsg). And this does not seem to be so
>>> simple (add a worker in the middle of somewhere?). Bjorn, feel free to
>>> comment this part.
>>>
>>> An alternate implementation consists in using a threaded IRQ for the
>>> mailbox interrupt.
>>> This option is not only simple, but also ensures to split bottom & half
>>> parts at the irq level which is IMHO a general good practice.
>>>
>>> I can see that some mailbox clients implement callbacks that are NOT
>>> atomic and I suspect this is the reason why some mailbox drivers use
>>> threaded_irq (rockchip mailbox splits the bottom & half parts).
>>>
>>> Would it be acceptable to consider the "atomic client callback" as a
>>> non-strict rule ?
>>>
>> Of course you can traverse atomic path from sleepable context (but not
>> vice-versa).
>
> So, to be sure we understand each other, I can use threaded_irq, right?
>
Yes. Its platform specific driver, I can't dictate the features you want :)
--
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
