On Thu, Aug 01 2024 at 16:09, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 12:41:25PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > + /*
>> > + * If a bit is set in the mux, GPIO the corresponding interrupt from
>> > + * controller 2 is direct and that controllers 0 or 1 is muxed.
>>
>> This is not a coherent sentence.
>
> It should read "controller 0 or 1;s interrupt is muxed". Does that make
> more sense to you?
No: If a bit is set in the mux, GPIO the corresponding...
I'm already failing at 'GPIO'. My parser expects a verb there :)
>> > + irq_set_chained_handler_and_data(virq, handle_untracked_irq,
>>
>> Why does this use handle_untracked_irq()?
>
> I'll have to go and dig back in my notes as to why it is untracked. It
> was probably something like irqd_set() in handle_irq_event() blowing up
> on the irq_data being invalid (which I figure could relate back to my
> questions in the cover letter about issues with irqd_to_hwirq()) - but
> I'll double check what exactly prompted it when I get back from my
> holidays, but...
>
>> This sets up a chained handler
>> but handle_untracked_irq() is a regular interrupt handler.
>
> ...what I was likely using before was handle_simple_irq() which isn't
> chained either. You're expecting to see mpfs_irq_mux_nondirect_handler()
> here I suppose?
Yes or some other proper chained handler.
> Given you've only commented on one significant issue and two minor items,
> is it safe to conclude that the overall approach doesn't have you
> screaming and running for the hills?
I don't love it, but I don't have a better approach to deal with this.
Thanks,
tglx
