19.01.2022 11:47, Ashish Mhetre пишет:
>
>
> On 1/12/2022 1:43 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>>
>>
>> 11.01.2022 21:45, Ashish Mhetre пишет:
>>>
>>> @@ -765,16 +768,21 @@ static int tegra_mc_probe(struct
>>> platform_device *pdev)
>>> return err;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - if (mc->soc->ops && mc->soc->ops->handle_irq) {
>>> + if (mc->soc->interrupt_ops &&
>>> mc->soc->interrupt_ops->handle_irq) {
>>> mc->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>> if (mc->irq < 0)
>>> return mc->irq;
>>>
>>> WARN(!mc->soc->client_id_mask, "missing client ID mask
>>> for this SoC\n");
>>>
>>> + /* clear any mc-errs that occurred before. */
>>
>> s/mc-errs/Memory Controller errors/
>>
> Sure, I'll update these in next version.
>>> + if (mc->soc->interrupt_ops->clear_interrupt)
>>> + mc->soc->interrupt_ops->clear_interrupt(mc);
>>
>> There is no explanation of this change neither in the code, nor in the
>> commit message. Please always provide detailed descriptions for a
>> non-trivial changes.
>>
>> Interrupts aren't cleared intentionally by the driver, otherwise you'll
>> never know about early-boot memory faults which happened before the
>> probe. Hence this change is incorrect.
> That's true, we should be logging early-boot memory faults as well.
> Ideally there shouldn't be any early-boot faults as all clients will
> be up after MC, right? But I agree that we should be checking and
> logging if any interrupt is present.
Normally there won't be any errors during early boot, otherwise they
need to be fixed.
