On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, Linus Walleij wrote:
Sorry for answering late.
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 2:31 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > This irqchip is in drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c and known
> > as TLMM.
TLMM == Totally Lost Manufacturer Mess?
> > However, the irqchip core helpers in GPIO assumes that
> > the .irq_request_resources() callback is always called before
> > .irq_enable(), and the latter is where module refcount and
> > also gpiochip_lock_as_irq() is normally called.
> >
> > When .irq_enable() is called without .irq_request_resources()
> > having been called first, it seems like we are enabling
> > an IRQ on a GPIO line that has not first been locked to be
> > used as IRQ and we get the above warning. This happens since
> > as of
> > commit 461c1a7d4733d ("gpiolib: override irq_enable/disable")
> > this is strictly assumed for all GPIO-based IRQs.
> >
> > As it seems reasonable to assume that .irq_request_resources()
> > is always strictly called before .irq_enable(), we add the
> > irq_[request|release]_resources() functions to the internal
> > API and call them also when adding a chained irqchip to
> > an IRQ.
> >
> > I am a bit uncertain about the call site for
> > irq_released_resources() inside chip.c, but it appears this
> > path is for uninstalling a chained handler.
You cannot invoke those callbacks from __irq_do_set_handler() as that is
holding the irq descriptor lock with interrupts disabled.
The calling convention for irq_released_resources() is that it's called
with the bus lock held (if the chip provides the bus lock callbacks), but
definitely not with desc->lock held.
Needs more thought. Btw, the uninstall path does not invoke irq_deactive()
either.... I so hate that chained handler mess....
Thanks,
tglx
