On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 05:36:24PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> On 26 August 2015 at 17:24, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote:
> [..]
> >>
> >> static irqreturn_t tw68_irq(int irq, void *dev_id)
> >> {
> >> struct tw68_dev *dev = dev_id;
> >> u32 status, orig;
> >> int loop;
> >>
> >> status = orig = tw_readl(TW68_INTSTAT) & dev->pci_irqmask;
> >
> > Now try to read that register when your clock is gated. That's the
> > problem I'm talking about. Everything about the handler is functioning
> > correctly; however clocks are gated in ->remove() and free_irq() is
> > only called *AFTER* ->remove() has returned.
> >
>
> Yeah, it's pretty clear you are talking about clocks here. That's
> why I said "read won't stall" in the next paragraph.
>
> >> [etc]
> >> }
> >>
> >> The IRQ handler accesses the device struct and then
> >> reads through PCI. So if you use devm_request_irq
> >> you need to make sure the device struct is still allocated
> >> after remove(), and the PCI read won't stall or crash.
> >
> > dude, that's not the problem I'm talking about. I still have my
> > private_data around, what I don't have is:
> >
> > _ _
> > __ _ ___| | ___ ___| | __
> > / _` | / __| |/ _ \ / __| |/ /
> > | (_| | | (__| | (_) | (__| <
> > \__,_| \___|_|\___/ \___|_|\_\
> >
> >
>
> Yes, *you* may have your private data around and have a clock gated,
> others (the tw68 for instance) may have its region released and unmapped.
>
> And yet others may have $whatever resource released in the
> remove() and assume it's available in the IRQ handler.
>
> I honestly can't think why using request_irq / free_irq to solve this
> is a workaround.
because it'll, eventually, boil down to not using devm_* at all and
that's pretty stupid.
--
balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
