[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 6/6] gpio: uniphier: add UniPhier GPIO controller driver

2017-09-13 0:44 GMT+09:00 David Daney <>:
> On 09/12/2017 07:03 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Masahiro Yamada
>> <> wrote:
>>> This GPIO controller device is used on UniPhier SoCs.
>>> It also serves as an interrupt controller, but interrupt signals are
>>> just delivered to the parent irqchip without any latching or OR'ing.
>>> This is implemented by using hierarchy IRQ domain.
>>> Implementation note:
>>> Unfortunately, the IRQ mapping from this controller to the parent is
>>> random. (48, 49, ..., 63, 154, 155, ...)
>>> If "interrupts" property is used, IRQ resources may be statically
>>> allocated when platform devices are populated from DT. This can be
>>> a problem for the hierarchy IRQ domain because IRQ allocation must
>>> happen from the outer-most domain up to the root domain in order to
>>> build up the stacked IRQ. (
>>> Solutions to work around it could be to hard-code parent hwirqs or
>>> to invent a driver-specific DT property.
>>> Here, the new API irq_domain_push_irq() was merged by v4.14-rc1.
>>> It allows to add irq_data to the existing hierarchy. It will help
>>> to make this driver work whether the parent has already initialized
>>> the hierarchy or not.
>>> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <>
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v4:
>>> - Reimplement irqchip part by using irq_domain_push_irq()
>> Awesome improvement. There was a build error and I also
>> would like David Daney to have a look at this so we know we
>> use things the right way,
> It looks correct to me.
> I haven't verified it, but I think the OF device-tree probing code for the
> platform devices will automatically xlat-and-map all those irqs, so that the
> irq_domain_push_irq() is required to get the domain hierarchy properly
> configured. It would be similar to the PCI case where we configure all the
> MSI-X and then do the irq_domain_push_irq() in the Cavium ThunderX driver.
> If interrupt handling has been verified to work with this driver, I would
> say that we are probably using things "the right way".
> David.

V4 depends on 5 patches that got negative feedback in irqdomain subsystem.
One more problem for this approach is to virtual IRQs are statically
allocated during the driver probe.
This looks a step backward to me.
Recently, gpio_irqchip migrated to on-the-fly allocation in case some
controllers may have lots of
GPIO lines.

Finally, I came up with another (I think, better) solution.
I think v5 is less controversial,
and works very well in on-the-fly manner.

I am sending it shortly...

Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-13 10:33    [W:0.073 / U:2.960 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site