On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 01:33:48PM +0300, Peter De Schrijver wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 01:05:13PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > > 25.07.2019 12:55, Peter De Schrijver пишет: > > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 12:54:51PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > > >> > > >> All Tegra SoCs support SC7, hence the 'supports_sc7' and the comment > > >> doesn't sound correct to me. Something like 'firmware_sc7' should suit > > >> better here. > > >> > > >>> + writel_relaxed(~0ul, ictlr + ICTLR_COP_IER_CLR); > > >> > > >> Secondly, I'm also not sure why COP interrupts need to be disabled for > > >> pre-T210 at all, since COP is unused. This looks to me like it was > > >> cut-n-pasted from downstream kernel without a good reason and could be > > >> simply removed. > > > > > > I don't think we can rely on the fact that COP is unused. People can > > > write their own code to run on COP. > > > > 1. Not upstream - doesn't matter. > > > > The code is not part of the kernel, so obviously it's not upstream? > > > 2. That's not very good if something unknown is running on COP and then > > kernel suddenly intervenes, don't you think so? > > Unless the code was written with this in mind. > Looking at this again, I don't think we need to enable the IRQ at all. Peter.
