On 23/04/12 16:33, viresh kumar wrote: > On 4/23/12, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 23/04/12 15:21, viresh kumar wrote: >>> On 4/23/12, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Ah, that explains why it worked. I suppose you do have additional >>>> patches that fix the IRQ request bit? >>> >>> Missed this earlier. That patchset is in review currently and have >>> already fixed that. :) >> >> Right. Please post that patch as a prerequisite for any other change. > > Haah!! I misread your question. I don't know how, but i thought you are > asking me to fix this address for SPEAr (My SoC). And that patch set > is currently in review. > > I didn't get this IRQ request bit thing? Can you please explain. The TWD watchdog uses a per-cpu interrupt (usually interrupt #30), and the GIC configuration should flag it as such. With this setup, request_irq() should fail, and the right API is request_percpu_irq(), together with enable_percpu_irq()/disable_percpu_irq(). So how it works in your environment is a bit puzzling. Unless you're not using GIC? M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-watchdog" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
