05.06.2019 1:55, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
> 04.06.2019 16:40, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
>> 04.06.2019 14:07, Thierry Reding пишет:
>>> On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 02:38:06AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> There is no guarantee that interrupt handling isn't running in parallel
>>>> with tegra_actmon_disable_interrupts(), hence it is necessary to protect
>>>> DEV_CTRL register accesses and clear IRQ status with ACTMON's IRQ being
>>>> disabled in the Interrupt Controller in order to ensure that device
>>>> interrupt is indeed being disabled.
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/devfreq/tegra-devfreq.c | 21 +++++++++++++++------
>>>> 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/devfreq/tegra-devfreq.c b/drivers/devfreq/tegra-devfreq.c
>>>> index b65313fe3c2e..ce1eb97a2090 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/devfreq/tegra-devfreq.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/devfreq/tegra-devfreq.c
>>>> @@ -171,6 +171,8 @@ struct tegra_devfreq {
>>>> struct notifier_block rate_change_nb;
>>>>
>>>> struct tegra_devfreq_device devices[ARRAY_SIZE(actmon_device_configs)];
>>>> +
>>>> + int irq;
>>>
>>> Interrupts are typically unsigned int.
>>>
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> struct tegra_actmon_emc_ratio {
>>>> @@ -417,6 +419,8 @@ static void tegra_actmon_disable_interrupts(struct tegra_devfreq *tegra)
>>>> u32 val;
>>>> unsigned int i;
>>>>
>>>> + disable_irq(tegra->irq);
>>>> +
>>>> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tegra->devices); i++) {
>>>> dev = &tegra->devices[i];
>>>>
>>>> @@ -427,9 +431,14 @@ static void tegra_actmon_disable_interrupts(struct tegra_devfreq *tegra)
>>>> val &= ~ACTMON_DEV_CTRL_CONSECUTIVE_ABOVE_WMARK_EN;
>>>>
>>>> device_writel(dev, val, ACTMON_DEV_CTRL);
>>>> +
>>>> + device_writel(dev, ACTMON_INTR_STATUS_CLEAR,
>>>> + ACTMON_DEV_INTR_STATUS);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> actmon_write_barrier(tegra);
>>>> +
>>>> + enable_irq(tegra->irq);
>>>
>>> Why do we enable interrupts after this? Is there any use in having the
>>> top-level interrupt enabled if nothing's going to generate an interrupt
>>> anyway?
>>
>> There is no real point in having the interrupt enabled other than to
>> keep the enable count balanced.
>>
>> IIUC, we will need to disable IRQ at the driver's probe time (after
>> requesting the IRQ) if we want to avoid that (not really necessary)
>> balancing. This is probably something that could be improved in a
>> follow-up patches, if desired.
>
> Nah, it's not worth the effort. It is quite problematic that we can't
> keep interrupt disabled during of devfreq_add_device() execution because
> it asks governor to enable the interrupt and the interrupt shall be
> disabled because we're using device's lock in the governor interrupt
> handler.. device is getting assigned only after completion of the
> devfreq_add_device() and hence ISR gets a NULL deref if it is fired
> before device is assigned. So I'll leave this part as-is.
>
> Thierry, please answer to all of the remaining patches where you had
> some concerns. I'll send out another series on top of this, addressing
> yours comments and fixing another bug that I spotted today.
>
I looked at this once again and found that the interrupt could be kept
disabled on request using the IRQ_NOAUTOEN flag and then the device
could be assigned within the governor's event handler, so everything is
resolved very nicely! :)
I'll send patches addressing this comment and the rest after getting
relies from you guys. Please try to not postpone the responses too much
as more interactivity in a review/apply process usually help quite a
lot, thanks in advance!
