On 25/10/2016 10:29, Sebastian Frias wrote: > On 10/24/2016 06:55 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > >> On Mon, 24 Oct 2016, Mason wrote: >> >>> For the record, setting the IRQ_DISABLE_UNLAZY flag for this device >>> makes the system lock-up disappear. >> >> The way how lazy irq disabling works is: >> >> 1) Interrupt is marked disabled in software, but the hardware is not masked >> >> 2) If the interrupt fires befor the interrupt is reenabled, then it's >> masked at the hardware level in the low level interrupt flow handler. > > Would you mind explaining what is the intention behind? > Because it does not seem obvious why there isn't a direct map between > "disable_irq*()" and "mask_irq()"
I had a similar, but slightly different question: What is the difference between struct irq_chip's * @irq_shutdown: shut down the interrupt (defaults to ->disable if NULL) * @irq_disable: disable the interrupt * @irq_mask: mask an interrupt source (enable seems to default to unmask, but disable does not default to mask) Regards.
