On Sat, Dec 05 2020 at 22:58, Linus Walleij wrote: > Sorry for top posting but I need the help of the irqchip maintainer > Marc Z to hash this out. > > The mask/unmask/disable/enable semantics is something that > you need to work with every day to understand right. The patch is correct. The irq_enable() callback is required to be a superset of irq_unmask(). I.e. the core code expects it to do: 1) Some preparatory work to enable the interrupt line 2) Unmask the interrupt, which is why the masked state is cleared by the core after invoking the irq_enable() callback. #2 is pretty obvious because if an interrupt chip does not implement the irq_enable() callback the core defaults to irq_unmask() Correspondingly the core expects from the irq_disable() callback: 1) To mask the interrupt 2) To do some extra work to disable the interrupt line Same reasoning as above vs. #1 as the core fallback is to invoke the irq_unmask() callback when the irq_disable() callback is not implemented. Thanks, tglx