On 09.01.2024 22:47, Sergey Shtylyov wrote:
> On 1/8/24 11:58 AM, claudiu beznea wrote:
>
> [...]
>>>> From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> The runtime PM implementation will disable clocks at the end of
>>>> ravb_probe(). As some IP variants switch to reset mode as a result of
>>>> setting module standby through clock disable APIs, to implement runtime PM
>>>> the resource parsing and requesting are moved in the probe function and IP
>>>> settings are moved in the open function. This is done because at the end of
>>>> the probe some IP variants will switch anyway to reset mode and the
>>>> registers content is lost. Also keeping only register specific operations
>>>> in the ravb_open()/ravb_close() functions will make them faster.
>>>>
>>>> Commit moves IRQ requests to ravb_probe() to have all the IRQs ready when
>>>> the interface is open. As now IRQs gets and requests are in a single place
>>>> there is no need to keep intermediary data (like ravb_rx_irqs[] and
>>>> ravb_tx_irqs[] arrays or IRQs in struct ravb_private).
>>>
>>> There's one thing that you probably didn't take into account: after
>>> you call request_irq(), you should be able to handle your IRQ as it's
>>> automatically unmasked, unless you pass IRQF_NO_AUTOEN to request_irq().
>>> Your device may be held i reset or even powered off but if you pass IRQF_SHARED to request_irq() (you do in a single IRQ config), you must
>>> be prepared to get your device's registers read (in order to ascertain
>
> And, at least on arm32, reading a powered off (or not clocked?) device's
> register causes an imprecise external abort exception -- which results in a
> kernel oops...
>
>>> whether it's your IRQ or not). And you can't even pass IRQF_NO_AUTOEN
>>> along with IRQF_SHARED, according to my reading of the IRQ code...
>>
>> Good point!
>>
>>>> This is a preparatory change to add runtime PM support for all IP variants.
>>>
>>> I don't readily see why this is necessary for the full-fledged RPM
>>> support...
>>
>> I tried to speed up the ravb_open()/ravb_close() but missed the IRQF_SHARED
>
> I doubt that optimizing ravb_{open,close}() is worth pursuing, frankly...
>
>> IRQ. As there is only one IRQ requested w/ IRQF_SHARED, are you OK with
>> still keeping the rest of IRQs handled as proposed by this patch?
>
> I'm not, as this doesn't really seem necessary for your main goal.
> It's not clear in what state U-Boot leaves EtherAVB...
Ok. One other reason I did this is, as commit message states, to keep
resource parsing and allocation/freeing in probe/remove and hardware
settings in open/close.
Anyway, I'll revert all the changes IRQ related.
Thank you,
Claudiu Beznea
>
> [...]
>
> MBR, Sergey
