Hi Thomas, Xiong
On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 09:54:06AM +0800, xiongxin wrote:
> 在 2023/12/13 22:59, Thomas Gleixner 写道:
> > On Wed, Dec 13 2023 at 10:29, xiongxin wrote:
> > > 在 2023/12/12 23:17, Thomas Gleixner 写道:
> > > Sorry, the previous reply may not have clarified the BUG process. I
> > > re-debugged and confirmed it yesterday. The current BUG execution
> > > sequence is described as follows:
> >
> > It's the sequence how this works and it works correctly.
> >
> > Just because it does not work on your machine it does not mean that this
> > is incorrect and a BUG.
> >
> > You are trying to fix a symptom and thereby violating guarantees of the
> > core code.
> >
> > > That is, there is a time between the 1:handle_level_irq() and
> > > 3:irq_thread_fn() calls for the 2:disable_irq() call to acquire the lock
> > > and then implement the irq_state_set_disabled() operation. When finally
> > > call irq_thread_fn()->irq_finalize_oneshot(), it cannot enter the
> > > unmask_thread_irq() process.
> >
> > Correct, because the interrupt has been DISABLED in the mean time.
> >
> > > In this case, the gpio irq_chip irq_mask()/irq_unmask() callback pairs
> > > are not called in pairs, so I think this is a BUG, but not necessarily
> > > fixed from the irq core code layer.
> >
> > No. It is _NOT_ a BUG. unmask() is not allowed to be invoked when the
> > interrupt is DISABLED. That's the last time I'm going to tell you that.
> > Only enable_irq() can undo the effect of disable_irq(), period.
> >
> > > Next, when the gpio controller driver calls the suspend/resume process,
> > > it is as follows:
> > >
> > > suspend process:
> > > dwapb_gpio_suspend()
> > > ctx->int_mask = dwapb_read(gpio, GPIO_INTMASK);
> > >
> > > resume process:
> > > dwapb_gpio_resume()
> > > dwapb_write(gpio, GPIO_INTMASK, ctx->int_mask);
> >
> > Did you actually look at the sequence I gave you?
> >
> > Suspend:
> >
> > i2c_hid_core_suspend()
> > disable_irq(); <- Marks it disabled and eventually
> > masks it.
> >
> > gpio_irq_suspend()
> > save_registers(); <- Saves masked interrupt
> >
> > Resume:
> >
> > gpio_irq_resume()
> > restore_registers(); <- Restores masked interrupt
> >
> > i2c_hid_core_resume()
> > enable_irq(); <- Unmasks interrupt and removes the
> > disabled marker
> >
> >
> > Have you verified that this order of invocations is what happens on
> > your machine?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > tglx
>
> As described earlier, in the current situation, the irq_mask() callback of
> gpio irq_chip is called in mask_irq(), followed by the disable_irq() in
> i2c_hid_core_suspend(), unmask_irq() will not be executed.
>
> Then call enable_irq() in i2c_hid_core_resume(). Since gpio irq_chip does
> not implement the irq_startup() callback, it ends up calling irq_enable().
>
> The irq_enable() function is then implemented as follows:
>
> irq_state_clr_disabled(desc);
> if (desc->irq_data.chip->irq_enable) {
> desc->irq_data.chip->irq_enable(&desc->irq_data);
> irq_state_clr_masked(desc);
> } else {
> unmask_irq(desc);
> }
>
> Because gpio irq_chip implements irq_enable(), unmask_irq() is not executed,
> and gpio irq_chip's irq_unmask() callback is not called. Instead,
> irq_state_clr_masked() was called to clear the masked flag.
>
> The irq masked behavior is actually controlled by the
> irq_mask()/irq_unmask() callback function pairs in gpio irq_chip. When the
> whole situation occurs, there is one more irq_mask() operation, or one less
> irq_unmask() operation. This ends the i2c hid resume and the gpio
> corresponding i2c hid interrupt is also masked.
>
> Please help confirm whether the current situation is a BUG, or suggest other
> solutions to fix it.
>
I has just been Cc'ed to this thread from the very start of the thread
so not sure whether I fully understand the problem. But a while ago an
IRQ disable/undisable-mask/unmask-unpairing problem was reported for
DW APB GPIO driver implementation, but in a another context though:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-gpio/1606728979-44259-1-git-send-email-luojiaxing@xxxxxxxxxx/
We didn't come to a final conclusion back then, so the patch got lost
in the emails archive. Xiong, is it related to the problem in your
case?
-Serge(y)
