lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC v3 2/3] dt-bindings: sdm845-pinctrl: add wakeup interrupt parent for GPIO
On Thu 29 Nov 13:45 PST 2018, Lina Iyer wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 28 2018 at 17:25 -0700, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> > On Wed 28 Nov 09:39 PST 2018, Lina Iyer wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Nov 27 2018 at 14:45 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > Quoting Lina Iyer (2018-11-27 10:21:23)
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 27 2018 at 02:12 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Two reasons. First, simplicity. The TLMM driver just needs to pass the
> > > > > >gpio number up to the PDC gpio domain and then that domain can figure
> > > > > >out what hwirq it maps to within the PDC hw irq space. I don't see any
> > > > > >reason why we have to know the hwirq of PDC within the TLMM driver
> > > > > >besides "let's not be different".
> > > > > >
> > > > > >And second, it makes it easier for us to implement the MPM case in the
> > > > > >TLMM driver by letting the TLMM code just ask "should I mask the irq
> > > > > >here or not?" by passing that with a wrapper struct around the fwspec
> > > > > >and a dedicated domain in the PDC/MPM driver. Keeping less things in the
> > > > > >TLMM driver and not driving the decision from DT but from tables in the
> > > > > >PDC driver also keeps things simple and reduces DT parsing code/time.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Couldn't this be simply achieved by matching the compatible flags for
> > > > > PDC/MPM bindings for the wakeup-parent in the TLMM driver?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It could be, but then we would be making TLMM highly aware of the wakeup
> > > > parent
> > > It is is not aware of anything about the wakeup parent, just the
> > > compatible that indicates whether it needs to be mask locally or not.
> > >
> >
> > But the information related to how the PDC is wired to GPIO pins is a
> > property related to the PDC not of the TLMM, so it does make sense to
> > represent this information there.
> >
> Hmm.. But we are inconsistent in what we provide as input into the PDC
> driver.
> From the PDC driver perspective, it gets a hwirq number either when
> driver requests a wakeup interrupt specified in DT as
> <&pdc 5 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>
> or from GPIO, which translates the GPIO to the PDC hwirq and requests
> that.
>

I see what you're saying, but need to think some more about this...

> > And iiuc it also makes sense to not encode it in DT because it's
> > physical wiring, not configuration.
> >
> I would agree.
>
> > > > and have to do compatible string matching in two places, instead
> > > > of making TLMM more abstractly aware that it needs to keep things masked
> > > > while irq parent deals with the interrupts.
> > > >
> > > Your approach seems too complex just to circumvent a simple match node.
> > > I think we are stretching too much to support something that is not a
> > > priority.
> > >
> >
> > What "something" are you referring to here?
> >
> MPM :)
>

There are still new platforms coming out with MPM, so there's even a
business case to care about it.

> BTW, I am discussing with the internal folks here on if we need to mask
> TLMM when the wakeup-parent is MPM. If we don't have to, we should be
> able to follow the same model as we done in this patch and don't even
> have to check the compatible or use the approach suggested by Stephen.
>

Looking forward to the result of that discussion.

Regards,
Bjorn

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-30 08:12    [W:0.196 / U:4.356 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site