lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 10/13] gpio: max77650: add GPIO support
czw., 24 sty 2019 o 11:30 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> napisał(a):
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 6:07 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> wrote:
>
> > Thank you for your review. While I think you're right about the issue
> > being present in this driver, I'm not sure it's really a problem. Do
> > we actually require every gpio-controller to also be a stand-alone
> > interrupt-controller?
>
> Absolutely not :D
>
> Just GPIO is fine.
>
> > The binding document for the GPIO module doesn't
> > mention this - it only requires the gpio-controller property. Without
> > the "interrupt-controller" property dtc will bail-out if anyone uses
> > this node as the interrupt parent.
> >
> > If I'm wrong and we do require it, then I think we need to update
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt.
>
> What is weird is if a driver with DT bindings not mentioning IRQ
> and only probing from DT start implementing IRQ support, that
> becomes quite inconsistent. So then max77650_gpio_to_irq()
> should just return -ENOTSUPP
> or something for now, then it's fine.
>

I don't see it as weird at all. I see the need to define the register
and interrupt resources in DT for SoC peripherals becaue SoCs often
reuse IPs. But in the case of a self-contained i2c PMIC - the modules
such as GPIO are tightly coupled with the core functionality. In the
case of this device for example: there isn't even a separate set of
mask/status registers for GPIO interrupts.

Most mfd devices setup the resources in a hard-coded manner.

> We can add the (complicated) IRQ handling later.
>
> I am trying to eat my own dogfood here, I was sweating all
> last night trying to implement a hierarchical IRQ controller.
> There is no running away from that now. :/
>
> Apparently doing hierarchical IRQs demand that all irq
> controllers up to the top-level SoC IRQ controller support
> hierarchical interrupts using the v2 version of the irqdomain
> API, and currently it seems like the ARM
> GIC seems like the only top level IRQ controller that can
> do that.
>

Yep, and for that reason I can't use the regmap irq_chip abstraction
for now because it doesn't implement support for hierarchical
interrupts either.

How about the cascaded gpiochip irq_chip?

Best regards,
Bartosz

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-29 12:01    [W:0.051 / U:25.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site