Am Mittwoch, 19. November 2014, 09:54:13 schrieb Doug Anderson:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Doug Anderson <dianders at chromium.org>
wrote:
> > +static void rockchip_irq_disable(struct irq_data *d)
> > +{
> > + struct irq_chip_generic *gc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
> > + u32 val;
> > +
> > + irq_gc_lock(gc);
> > + val = irq_reg_readl(gc, GPIO_INTEN);
> > + irq_reg_writel(gc, val & ~d->mask, GPIO_INTEN);
> > + irq_gc_unlock(gc);
> > +}
>
> Off list, Dmitry asked me why I didn't use irq_gc_mask_disable_reg()
> and irq_gc_unmask_enable_reg() (AKA why I coded up my own function
> here). Originally I tried to use irq_gc_mask_disable_reg() and
> irq_gc_unmask_enable_reg(). ..but they're really not designed to work
> in tandem with the irq_gc_mask_set_bit() and irq_gc_mask_clr_bit().
>
> Specifically if you try to use one set of functions for your
> mask/unmask and the other for your disable/enable you'll find that
> they stomp on each other. Both functions upkeep the exact same
> "mask_cache" variable.
>
> Personally I'm totally baffled by how irq_gc_mask_disable_reg() and
> irq_gc_unmask_enable_reg() could actually be sane, but that's maybe a
> topic for another discussion.
I don't think irq_gc_mask_disable_reg and irq_gc_unmask_enable_reg are meant
as callbacks for irq_enable/irq_disable. As the name implies they are
standardized callbacks for irq_mask/irq_unmask on machines using a different
scheme for masking. So I would expected that they operate on the same
mask_cache because both types of functions handle masking on different types of
interrupt controllers.
There don't seem to be any generalized callbacks for irq_enable/irq_disable
themself, probably because machines do the most uncommon things there :-)
Heiko
