Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> This fixes interrupt-related issue when no
> interfaces were running thus the device was
> considered powered down.
>
> The power_down() function isn't really powering
> down the device. It simply assumed it won't
> interrupt. This wasn't true in some cases and
> could lead to paging failures upon FW indication
> interrupt (i.e. FW crash) because some structures
> aren't allocated in that device state.
>
> One reason for that was that ar_pci->started
> wasn't reset. The other is interrupts should've
> been masked when teardown starts.
>
> The patch reorganized interrupt setup and makes
> sure ar_pci->started is reset accordingly.
>
> Reported-by: Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> v2:
> * updated commit message
> * added Reported-By: Ben
> * added disable_irq() in hif_stop()
> * added ar_pci->started resetting
> * removed ar_pci->intr_started
Thanks, this looks much better now.
But I still have one question:
> @@ -1742,6 +1761,12 @@ static int ath10k_pci_hif_power_up(struct ath10k *ar)
> {
> int ret;
>
> + ret = ath10k_pci_start_intr(ar);
> + if (ret) {
> + ath10k_err("could not start interrupt handling (%d)\n", ret);
> + goto err;
> + }
So now we call start_intr() during power_up(), which means that we do
the request_irq() calls during every interface up event. Does that cause
any meaningful overhead?
For me it looks better to do all resource allocation in
ath10k_pci_probe(), like request_irq(), and free the resources in
ath10k_pci_remove(). But then we would need to immeadiately call
disable_irq() and then enable_irq() from power_up() so I'm not sure if
that's any better.
--
Kalle Valo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
