On Fri, 19 Sep 2014, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 08:37-20140919, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > The other omap drivers using this have the same issue ... And of > > course they are subtly different. > > > > The uart one handles the actual device interrupt, which is violating > > the general rule of possible interrupt reentrancy in the pm-runtime > > case if the two interrupts are affine to two different cores. Yes, > > it's protected by a lock and works by chance .... > > > > The mmc one issues a disable_irq_nosync() in the wakeup irq handler > > itself. > > > > WHY does one driver need that and the other does not? You are not even > > able to come up with a common scheme for OMAP. I don't want to see the > > mess others are going to create when this stuff becomes more used. > > > > Thanks, > > > > tglx > > I think I understand your concern - I request Tony to comment about > this. I mean, I can try and hook things like uart in other drivers > (like https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4759171/ ), but w.r.t overall > generic usage guideline wise, I would prefer Tony to comment. No, the uart and that i2c thing are just wrong. Assume the following device irq affine to cpu0 wakeup irq affine to cpu1 CPU 0 CPU 1 runtime suspend enable_wake(wakeup irq); wakeup interrupt is raised device interrupt is raised dev_handler(device) dev_handler(device) It might work due to locking, but it is nevertheless wrong. Interrupt handlers for devices are guaranteed not to be reentrant. And this brilliant stuff simply violates that guarantee. So, no. It's wrong even if it happens to work by chance. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
