On 18/12/2024 06:31, Xu Yang wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 09:29:36PM +0100, Emanuele Ghidoli wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17/12/2024 17:35, Francesco Dolcini wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 05:12:08PM +0800, Xu Yang wrote:
>>>> With edge irq support, the ALERT event may be missed currently. The reason
>>>> is that ALERT_MASK register is written before devm_request_threaded_irq().
>>>> If ALERT event happens in this time gap, it will be missed and ALERT line
>>>> will not recover to high level. However, we don't meet this issue with
>>>> level irq. To avoid the issue, this will set ALERT_MASK register after
>>>> devm_request_threaded_irq() return.
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: 77e85107a771 ("usb: typec: tcpci: support edge irq")
>>>> Cc: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Signed-off-by: Xu Yang <xu.yang_2@xxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> I had an offline chat with a Emanuele (in Cc:) that worked on this a few
>>> weeks ago and he remember that he already tried a similar approach, but
>>> for some reason he did not work.
>>>
>>> He should be able to try this patch in a few days, but with the upcoming
>>> winter holidays he might not be super responsive.
>>>
>>> I wonder if we could wait a little before merging this to allow this
>>> testing to happen. Or maybe you can just test if this is working on your
>>> setup using edge interrupts (you would need to use only one TCPCI, for
>>> the test).
>>>
>>> Francesco
>>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I was curious, so I tested the two patches. I can confirm that if both are applied,
>> edge interrupts still work correctly.
>> However, with only the first patch applied, it does not work.
>
> Yes. This is an expected results. So could this be regarded as a tested-by?
> I have tested edge irq before sending out the patches too.
>
> Thanks,
> Xu Yang
Hello Xu,
I confirmed that the first patch introduces a regression,
so I agree with Francesco and Dan about merging the two patches.
Anyway, I tested it.
Tested-by: Emanuele Ghidoli <emanuele.ghidoli@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Regards,
Emanuele
