On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 02:44:26PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 01:08:02PM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> > enable_irq() and disable_irq() are reference counted, so we must make sure
> > that each enable_irq() is always paired with a single disable_irq(). If we
> > call disable_irq() twice followed by just a single enable_irq(), the IRQ
> > will remain disabled forever.
> >
> > For the error handling path in qcom_q6v5_wait_for_start(), disable_irq()
> > will end up being called twice, because disable_irq() also happens in
> > qcom_q6v5_unprepare() when rolling back the call to qcom_q6v5_prepare().
> >
> > Fix this by dropping disable_irq() in qcom_q6v5_wait_for_start(). Since
> > qcom_q6v5_prepare() is the function that calls enable_irq(), it makes more
> > sense to have the rollback handled always by qcom_q6v5_unprepare().
> >
> > Fixes: 3b415c8fb263 ("remoteproc: q6v5: Extract common resource handling")
>
> Didn't earlier versions also have the same behaviour?
>
I don't think so. The "extracted common resource handling" came from
qcom_q6v5_pil.c, but q6v5_start() just had most of this code inline in a
single function [1]. The handling of enable_irq()/disable_irq() through
the goto labels looks correct there.
Thanks,
Stephan
[1]:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/remoteproc/qcom_q6v5_pil.c?id=0e622e80191e75c99b6ecc265c140a37d81e7a63#n795
