On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 01:59:09PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: > 25.07.2019 13:38, Peter De Schrijver пишет: > > 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. > >> > > In that case, please see 1. ;) > In general the kernel should not touch the COP interrupts I think. > > > > Looking at this again, I don't think we need to enable the IRQ at all. > > Could you please clarify? The code only saves/restores COP's interrupts > context across suspend-resume. The sc7 entry firmware doesn't use interrupts. Peter.
