lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/5] drivers: pinctrl: qcom: add wakeup capability to GPIO
On Mon, Aug 20 2018 at 00:05 -0600, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
>On Fri 17 Aug 09:38 PDT 2018, Lina Iyer wrote:
>
>Thanks Lina, I think this looks like a very reasonable approach!
>
>> QCOM SoC's that have Power Domain Controller (PDC) chip in the always-on
>> domain can wakeup the SoC, when interrupts and GPIOs are routed to the
>> its interrupt controller. Only select GPIOs that are deemed wakeup
>> capable are routed to specific PDC pins. During low power state, the
>> pinmux interrupt controller may be non-functional but the PDC would be.
>> The PDC can detect the wakeup GPIO is triggered and bring the TLMM to an
>> operational state.
>>
>> Interrupts that are level triggered will be detected at the TLMM when
>> the controller becomes operational. Edge interrupts however need to be
>> replayed again.
>>
>> Request the corresponding PDC IRQ, when the GPIO is requested as an IRQ,
>> but keep it disabled. During suspend, we can enable the PDC IRQ instead
>> of the GPIO IRQ, which may or not be detected.
>>
>
>Afaict we can model a driver for the MPM hardware - for previous
>platforms - after your PDC driver and all of this logic will be reused.
>
>As such I think it would be better to use the word "wake" instead of
>"pdc" in the implementation. I don't see a problem with the commit
>message being specific and talking about the PDC though, so keep that.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Lina Iyer <ilina@codeaurora.org>
>> ---
>> Changes in v1:
>> - Trigger GPIO in h/w from PDC IRQ handler
>> - Avoid big tables for GPIO-PDC map, pick from DT instead
>> - Use handler_data
>> ---
>> drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c | 97 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 97 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c
>> index 0e22f52b2a19..03ef1d29d078 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c
>> @@ -687,11 +687,15 @@ static int msm_gpio_irq_set_type(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int type)
>> const struct msm_pingroup *g;
>> unsigned long flags;
>> u32 val;
>> + struct irq_data *pdc_irqd = irq_get_handler_data(d->irq);
>>
>> g = &pctrl->soc->groups[d->hwirq];
>>
>> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pctrl->lock, flags);
>>
>> + if (pdc_irqd)
>> + irq_set_irq_type(pdc_irqd->irq, type);
>> +
>> /*
>> * For hw without possibility of detecting both edges
>> */
>> @@ -779,9 +783,13 @@ static int msm_gpio_irq_set_wake(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int on)
>> struct gpio_chip *gc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
>> struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl = gpiochip_get_data(gc);
>> unsigned long flags;
>> + struct irq_data *pdc_irqd = irq_get_handler_data(d->irq);
>>
>> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pctrl->lock, flags);
>>
>> + if (pdc_irqd)
>> + irq_set_irq_wake(pdc_irqd->irq, on);
>> +
>> irq_set_irq_wake(pctrl->irq, on);
>
>Given that the TLMM summary logic isn't powered during a collapse, is
>there really a point in toggling the wake of the summary irq? (I wrote
>this, not sure it is correct)
>
>Also, we're not modifying any tlmm state here, so we shouldn't need that
>spinlock.
>
Okay.
>>
>> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pctrl->lock, flags);
>> @@ -863,6 +871,93 @@ static bool msm_gpio_needs_valid_mask(struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl)
>> return device_property_read_u16_array(pctrl->dev, "gpios", NULL, 0) > 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static irqreturn_t wake_irq_gpio_handler(int irq, void *data)
>> +{
>> + struct irq_data *irqd = data;
>> + struct gpio_chip *gc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(irqd);
>> + struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl = gpiochip_get_data(gc);
>> + const struct msm_pingroup *g;
>> + unsigned long flags;
>> + u32 val;
>> +
>> + if (!irqd_is_level_type(irqd)) {
>
>This deserves a comment in the code as well.
>
Will add.

>> + g = &pctrl->soc->groups[irqd->hwirq];
>> + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pctrl->lock, flags);
>> + val = BIT(g->intr_status_bit);
>> + writel(val, pctrl->regs + g->intr_status_reg);
>> + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pctrl->lock, flags);
>> + }
>> +
>> + return IRQ_HANDLED;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int msm_gpio_pdc_pin_request(struct irq_data *d)
>> +{
>> + struct gpio_chip *gc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
>> + struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl = gpiochip_get_data(gc);
>> + struct platform_device *pdev = to_platform_device(pctrl->dev);
>> + unsigned irq;
>> + unsigned long trigger;
>> + const char *pin_name;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + pin_name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "gpio%lu", d->hwirq);
>
>pin_name needs to be released in msm_gpio_pdc_pin_release() as well.
>
>> + if (!pin_name)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + irq = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, pin_name);
>> + if (irq < 0) {
>> + kfree(pin_name);
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> + trigger = irqd_get_trigger_type(d) | IRQF_ONESHOT | IRQF_NO_SUSPEND;
>> + ret = request_irq(irq, wake_irq_gpio_handler, trigger, pin_name, d);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + pr_warn("GPIO-%lu could not be set up as wakeup", d->hwirq);
>> + kfree(pin_name);
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>> +
>> + irq_set_handler_data(d->irq, irq_get_irq_data(irq));
>> + disable_irq(irq);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int msm_gpio_pdc_pin_release(struct irq_data *d)
>> +{
>> + struct irq_data *pdc_irqd = irq_get_handler_data(d->irq);
>> +
>> + if (pdc_irqd) {
>> + irq_set_handler_data(d->irq, NULL);
>> + free_irq(pdc_irqd->irq, d);
>
>free_irq() returns what was "pin_name" in msm_gpio_pdc_pin_request(), so
>you should be able to free that.
>
Just realized the return value. Will fix.

Thanks,
Lina

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-27 18:52    [W:0.099 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site