[PATCH v7 1/9] irqchip: add Amlogic Meson GPIO irqchip driver

Thu Jun 15 09:37:41 PDT 2017

Am 15.06.2017 um 18:04 schrieb Marc Zyngier:
> On 15/06/17 16:24, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>> Am 15.06.2017 um 15:27 schrieb Marc Zyngier:
>>> On 15/06/17 14:10, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>>> Am 13.06.2017 um 10:31 schrieb Marc Zyngier:
>>>>> On 10/06/17 22:57, Heiner Kallweit wrote:
>>>>>> Add a driver supporting the GPIO interrupt controller on certain
>>>>>> Amlogic meson SoC's.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1 at gmail.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> v5:
>>>>>> - changed Kconfig entry based on Neil's suggestion
>>>>>> - added authors
>>>>>> - extended explanation why 2 * n hwirqs are used
>>>>>> v6:
>>>>>> - change DT property parent-interrupts to interrupts
>>>>>> v7:
>>>>>> - no changes
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  drivers/irqchip/Kconfig          |   5 +
>>>>>>  drivers/irqchip/Makefile         |   1 +
>>>>>>  drivers/irqchip/irq-meson-gpio.c | 295 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>  3 files changed, 301 insertions(+)
>>>>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/irqchip/irq-meson-gpio.c
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig b/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig
>>>>>> index 478f8ace..bdc86e14 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig
>>>>>> @@ -301,3 +301,8 @@ config QCOM_IRQ_COMBINER
>>>>>>  	help
>>>>>>  	  Say yes here to add support for the IRQ combiner devices embedded
>>>>>>  	  in Qualcomm Technologies chips.
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +config MESON_GPIO_INTC
>>>>>> +	bool
>>>>>> +	depends on ARCH_MESON
>>>>>> +	default y
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/Makefile b/drivers/irqchip/Makefile
>>>>>> index b64c59b8..1be482bd 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/Makefile
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/Makefile
>>>>>> @@ -76,3 +76,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_EZNPS_GIC)			+= irq-eznps.o
>>>>>>  obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_ASPEED)		+= irq-aspeed-vic.o
>>>>>>  obj-$(CONFIG_STM32_EXTI) 		+= irq-stm32-exti.o
>>>>>>  obj-$(CONFIG_QCOM_IRQ_COMBINER)		+= qcom-irq-combiner.o
>>>>>> +obj-$(CONFIG_MESON_GPIO_INTC)		+= irq-meson-gpio.o
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-meson-gpio.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-meson-gpio.c
>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>> index 00000000..925d00c2
>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-meson-gpio.c
>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,295 @@
>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>> + * Amlogic Meson GPIO IRQ chip driver
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * Copyright (c) 2015 Endless Mobile, Inc.
>>>>>> + * Author: Carlo Caione <carlo at endlessm.com>
>>>>>> + * Copyright (c) 2016 BayLibre, SAS.
>>>>>> + * Author: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet at baylibre.com>
>>>>>> + * Copyright (c) 2017 Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1 at gmail.com>
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
>>>>>> + * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
>>>>>> + * published by the Free Software Foundation, version 2.
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#include <linux/device.h>
>>>>>> +#include <linux/init.h>
>>>>>> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
>>>>>> +#include <linux/irqchip.h>
>>>>>> +#include <linux/of.h>
>>>>>> +#include <linux/of_irq.h>
>>>>>> +#include <linux/of_address.h>
>>>>>> +#include <linux/regmap.h>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#define REG_EDGE_POL		0x00
>>>>>> +#define REG_PIN_03_SEL		0x04
>>>>>> +#define REG_PIN_47_SEL		0x08
>>>>>> +#define REG_FILTER_SEL		0x0c
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#define REG_EDGE_POL_MASK(x)	(BIT(x) | BIT(16 + (x)))
>>>>>> +#define REG_EDGE_POL_EDGE(x)	BIT(x)
>>>>>> +#define REG_EDGE_POL_LOW(x)	BIT(16 + (x))
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#define MAX_PARENT_IRQ_NUM	8
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +/* maximum number of GPIO IRQs on supported platforms */
>>>>>> +#define MAX_NUM_GPIO_IRQ	133
>>>>>
>>>>> Why aren't these values coming from DT? I bet that a future revision of
>>>>> the same HW will double these. Or at least, you could match it on the
>>>>> compatible string.
>>>>>
>>>> Alternatively this value can be set to 255. The GPIO source is an 8 bit
>>>> value with 255 being reserved for "no interrupt source assigned".
>>>
>>> Who is reserving it? The HW? Or is that your own defined convention?
>>>
>>>> This way we cover all chips based on the same IP.
>>>
>>> Why? Where is that 8bit limit coming from?
>>>
>> The 8 bit limit is in the HW.
>>
>>>> I think what we could gain by introducing an additional DT property
>>>> (saving a few bytes in the irqdomain mapping table) isn't worth the effort.
>>>
>>> It is not about saving or wasting memory. It is about making the driver
>>> and its binding able to span multiple generation of the HW without too
>>> much churn. Which is why I'm suggesting that you either define these
>>> properties in DT *or* match the compatible string to obtain these values.
>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>> + * In case of IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH we need two parent interrupts, one for each
>>>>>> + * edge. That's due to HW constraints.
>>>>>> + * We use format 2 * GPIO_HWIRQ +(0|1) for the hwirq, so we can have one
>>>>>> + * GPIO_HWIRQ twice and derive the GPIO_HWIRQ from hwirq by shifting hwirq
>>>>>> + * one bit to the right.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please expand on how you expect this to work, specially when a random
>>>>> driver expects a single interrupt.
>>>>>
>>>> The gpio interrupt controller in this chip doesn't have native support for
>>>> IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH. As a workaround we would need to assign the same gpio
>>>> to two parent interrupts, one for each edge.
>>>
>>> No, that's horrible, racy, and impractical. It has been proposed in the
>>> past (for the same HW), and we're not going there again.
>>>
>> IIRC what has been proposed before is to re-program the polarity of edge
>> detection withing the ISR. This would match your concern that it is racy.
>>
>> Here it's about using two parent irq's, one programmed to react on the
>> rising edge whilst the other is triggered in case of falling edge.
>> Would you consider this to be racy too?
> 
> How do you reconcile two interrupts to make look like a single one for a
> random, pre-existing driver?
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>>> So you reject EDGE_BOTH? So what's the deal with the beginning of the patch?
>>>>>
>>>> We reject it in the initial version of the patch set as there's no consensus
>>>> yet on some details of the workaround needed for EDGE_BOTH support.
>>>
>>> There is a consensus: The HW doesn't support this feature.
>>>
>> Means what? There is no acceptable way to support EDGE_BOTH on this HW?
>> In this case I could stop here as for me this feature is important.
> 
> Answer my question above, which I asked in my initial review: How do you
> make two interrupts appear as one for a driver that wants to get
> signaled on each edge, using the existing API.
> 
Please see the pinctrl/gpio part of the patch set.

The GPIO controller has an own IRQ domain. When requesting an interrupt
in request_resources if needed two parent irq's are allocated, (was removed
in the current initial version of the patch set) both calling the same ISR
via a chained interrupt.

Works perfectly fine here.

>>
>> Would be somewhat a pity as there is a working solution. If it doesn't fit
>> into the current irq(chip) framework, shouldn't this be considered a gap
>> in the framework?
> 
> Again, this is not about the framework, which we can almost twist as we
> see fit. It is about the API that a driver expects. At the moment, you
> haven't proposed anything.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	M.
> 