On 14.05.2021 13:19:43, Torin Cooper-Bennun wrote: > Using the TCAN4550, I've had occasions where the m_can driver has fallen > over with the "nobody cared" message -- the ISR has returned IRQ_NONE > upon "99,900 of the previous 100,000 interrupts" (see > kernel/irq/spurious.c, __report_bad_irq()). > > While such high numbers certainly indicate some kind of fault, > presently, device-specific interrupts are totally ignored -- it may be > that such a fault can be handled with a device-specific action. Do you know why the tcan4x5x specific interrupts are enabled in the first place? If no-one is handling them, just mask/disable/etc then.... > Comments are welcome. One thing right off the bat: I'm not sure whether > the new callback should be added alongside clear_interrupts, or if it > should replace it. I don't see why we need two callbacks from the generic interrupt handler, one should be enough. > I also need to replicate the fault observed with the TCAN4550 - it's > unlikely that the handling added in this patchset is effective by > itself. Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
