On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 04:55:09PM +0200, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> 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.
Reviewed-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
