Re: [PATCH RFC 02/14] drivers: irqchip: pdc: Do not toggle IRQ_ENABLE during mask/unmask

[Stephen Boyd <swboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoting Lina Iyer (2019-09-11 09:15:57)
> On Thu, Sep 05 2019 at 18:39 -0600, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >Quoting Lina Iyer (2019-08-29 11:11:51)
> >> When an interrupt is to be serviced, the convention is to mask the
> >> interrupt at the chip and unmask after servicing the interrupt. Enabling
> >> and disabling the interrupt at the PDC irqchip causes an interrupt storm
> >> due to the way dual edge interrupts are handled in hardware.
> >>
> >> Skip configuring the PDC when the IRQ is masked and unmasked, instead
> >> use the irq_enable/irq_disable callbacks to toggle the IRQ_ENABLE
> >> register at the PDC. The PDC's IRQ_ENABLE register is only used during
> >> the monitoring mode when the system is asleep and is not needed for
> >> active mode detection.
> >
> >I think this is saying that we want to always let the line be sent
> >through the PDC to the parent irqchip, in this case GIC, so that we
> >don't get an interrupt storm for dual edge interrupts? Why does dual
> >edge interrupts cause a problem?
> >
> I am not sure about the hardware details, but the PDC designers did not
> expect enable and disable to be called whenever the interrupt is
> handled. This specially becomes a problem for dual edge interrupts which
> seems to generate a interrupt storm when enabled/disabled while handling
> the interrupt.
> 

Ok. I just wanted to confirm that masking "doesn't matter" to the PDC
because it assumes the irqchip closer to the CPU will be able to mask it
anyway. Is that right?