On 06.06.2024 22:48, Prabhakar wrote:
> From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The order of function calls in the disable operation should be the reverse
> of that in the enable operation. Thus, reorder the function calls to first
> disable the parent IRQ chip before disabling the TINT IRQ.
>
> Reported-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Tested-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea.uj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # on RZ/G3S
> ---
> drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-rzg2l.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-rzg2l.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-rzg2l.c
> index 861a0e5a3e97..693ff285ca2c 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-rzg2l.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-renesas-rzg2l.c
> @@ -271,8 +271,8 @@ static void rzg2l_tint_irq_endisable(struct irq_data *d, bool enable)
>
> static void rzg2l_irqc_irq_disable(struct irq_data *d)
> {
> - rzg2l_tint_irq_endisable(d, false);
> irq_chip_disable_parent(d);
> + rzg2l_tint_irq_endisable(d, false);
> }
>
> static void rzg2l_irqc_irq_enable(struct irq_data *d)
