Quoting Doug Anderson (2020-12-10 17:30:17) > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 5:21 PM Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Yeah and so if it comes way later because it timed out then what's the > > point of calling synchronize_irq() again? To make the completion > > variable set when it won't be tested again until it is reinitialized? > > Presumably the idea is to try to recover to a somewhat usable state > again? We're not rebooting the machine so, even though this transfer > failed, we will undoubtedly do another transfer later. If that > "abort" interrupt comes way later while we're setting up the next > transfer we'll really confuse ourselves. The interrupt handler just sets a completion variable. What does that confuse? > > I guess you could go the route of adding a synchronize_irq() at the > start of the next transfer, but I'd rather add the overhead in the > exceptional case (the timeout) than the normal case. In the normal > case we don't need to worry about random IRQs from the past transfer > suddenly showing up. > How does adding synchronize_irq() at the end guarantee that the abort is cleared out of the hardware though? It seems to assume that the abort is pending at the GIC when it could still be running through the hardware and not executed yet. It seems like a synchronize_irq() for that is wishful thinking that the irq is merely pending even though it timed out and possibly never ran. Maybe it's stuck in a write buffer in the CPU?
