Hi Christophe, On Mon, 2024-11-18 at 21:40 +0100, Christophe JAILLET wrote: > Also wondering if it is needed in exynos_irq_release_resources() if > clk_enable() fails and we early return. > > I don't know how these callbacks are used and if we could dead-lock in > such a situation. > > What do you think? This was pointed out indeed in https://lore.kernel.org/all/9a960401-f41f-4902-bcbd-8f30f318ba98@xxxxxxxxxx/ but irq_chip::irq_release_resources() is not expected to fail. _mask(), _unmask(), and _ack() have a similar issue. In practice, I don't think the enable has ever failed in our usecase - it's just a simple bit flip after all. There are two options, update the callback signatures (and all users...), or keep the clock on for the whole duration. Given the clock really is needed for register access only, we didn't do the latter originally: https://lore.kernel.org/all/0106b6f58ce19752c2c685d128e5a480103ee91c.camel@xxxxxxxxxx/ Not sure what the preference would be, 2nd option is likely easier to do and it would be surprising if _mask() etc. suddenly could fail. Cheers, Andre'
