On 3/19/2022 9:20 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments 16.03.2022 12:25, Ashish Mhetre пишет:+irqreturn_t tegra30_mc_handle_irq(int irq, void *data) { struct tegra_mc *mc = data; unsigned long status; + bool mc_has_channels; unsigned int bit; + int channel;unsigned int
Okay, I will update in next version.
+ mc_has_channels = mc->soc->num_channels && mc->soc->get_int_channel; + if (mc_has_channels) { + int err; + + err = mc->soc->get_int_channel(mc, &channel); + if (err < 0) + return IRQ_NONE; + + /* mask all interrupts to avoid flooding */ + status = mc_ch_readl(mc, channel, MC_INTSTATUS) & mc->soc->intmask; + } else { + status = mc_readl(mc, MC_INTSTATUS) & mc->soc->intmask; + }So if mc_has_channels=false, while it should be true, then you're going to handle interrupt incorrectly?
I am not able to understand the case where this can happen? num_channels and get_int_channels are both getting defined on T186 onwards where mc_has_channels is expected to be true. Do you mean to say that we need to add more chip specific checks in case of mc_has_channels is false?
