On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 06:37:46PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > Hi Vinod, > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 06:42:17PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > > - don't use devm_request_irq(). You have irq enabled and you have killed > > tasklet. This is too racy. You need to ensure no irqs can be generated before killing > > tasklets. > > Ok, would calling disable_irq before killing the tasklet an option for > you ? that would allow to keep the devm_request_irq. That's not really an acceptable approach if you can use shared interrupts. A better alternative would be devm_free_irq() to give a definite point that the interrupt is unregistered in the driver remove sequence. That allows you to keep the advantage of devm_request_irq() to clean up during the initialisation side. An alternative approach would be to ensure that the hardware is quiesced, and interrupts are disabled. Then call synchronize_irq() on it, and at that point, you should be certain that your interrupt handler should not process any further interrupts for your device (though, in a shared interrupt environment, it would still be called should a different device on the shared line raise its interrupt.) -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.5Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
