Quoting tengfeif@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (2019-06-11 03:41:26) > On 2019-06-10 22:51, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Quoting Linus Walleij (2019-06-07 14:08:10) > >> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 8:52 AM Tengfei Fan <tengfeif@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > The gpio interrupt status bit is getting set after the > >> > irq is disabled and causing an immediate interrupt after > >> > enablling the irq, so clear status bit on irq_unmask. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Tengfei Fan <tengfeif@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> This looks pretty serious, can one of the Qcom maintainers ACK > >> this? > >> > >> Should it be sent to fixes and even stable? > >> > >> Fixes: tag? > >> > > > > How is the interrupt status bit getting set after the irq is disabled? > > It looks like this is a level type interrupt? I thought that after > > commit b55326dc969e ("pinctrl: msm: Really mask level interrupts to > > prevent latching") this wouldn't be a problem. Am I wrong, or is qcom > > just clearing out patches on drivers and this is the last one that > > needs > > to be upstreamed? > > Your patch(commit b55326dc969e) can cover our issue, and my patch is no > longer needed. > Your patch isn't included in our code, so I submitted this patch. Alright cool. Sounds like this patch can be dropped then and you can pick up the patch from upstream into your vendor kernel.