lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [May]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 5/5] pinctrl: renesas: pinctrl-rzg2l: Add IRQ domain to handle GPIO interrupt
Hi Prabhakar,

On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 8:13 PM Lad, Prabhakar
<prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 3:29 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 3:56 PM Lad, Prabhakar
> > <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 7:53 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 7:36 PM Lad, Prabhakar
> > > > <prabhakar.csengg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 8:39 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 8:32 PM Lad Prabhakar
> > > > > > <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Add IRQ domian to RZ/G2L pinctrl driver to handle GPIO interrupt.
> > > > > > > GPIO0-GPIO122 pins can be used as IRQ lines but only 32 pins can be
> > > > > > > used as IRQ lines at given time. Selection of pins as IRQ lines
> > > > > > > is handled by IA55 (which is the IRQC block) which sits in between the
> > > > > > > GPIO and GIC.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for your patch!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/renesas/pinctrl-rzg2l.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/renesas/pinctrl-rzg2l.c
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > static int rzg2l_gpio_register(struct rzg2l_pinctrl *pctrl)
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > struct device_node *np = pctrl->dev->of_node;
> > > > > > > struct gpio_chip *chip = &pctrl->gpio_chip;
> > > > > > > const char *name = dev_name(pctrl->dev);
> > > > > > > + struct irq_domain *parent_domain;
> > > > > > > struct of_phandle_args of_args;
> > > > > > > + struct device_node *parent_np;
> > > > > > > + struct gpio_irq_chip *girq;
> > > > > > > int ret;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > + parent_np = of_irq_find_parent(np);
> > > > > > > + if (!parent_np)
> > > > > > > + return -ENXIO;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + parent_domain = irq_find_host(parent_np);
> > > > > > > + of_node_put(parent_np);
> > > > > > > + if (!parent_domain)
> > > > > > > + return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > ret = of_parse_phandle_with_fixed_args(np, "gpio-ranges", 3, 0, &of_args);
> > > > > > > if (ret) {
> > > > > > > dev_err(pctrl->dev, "Unable to parse gpio-ranges\n");
> > > > > > > @@ -1138,6 +1330,15 @@ static int rzg2l_gpio_register(struct rzg2l_pinctrl *pctrl)
> > > > > > > chip->base = -1;
> > > > > > > chip->ngpio = of_args.args[2];
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > + girq = &chip->irq;
> > > > > > > + girq->chip = &rzg2l_gpio_irqchip;
> > > > > > > + girq->fwnode = of_node_to_fwnode(np);
> > > > > > > + girq->parent_domain = parent_domain;
> > > > > > > + girq->child_to_parent_hwirq = rzg2l_gpio_child_to_parent_hwirq;
> > > > > > > + girq->populate_parent_alloc_arg = rzg2l_gpio_populate_parent_fwspec;
> > > > > > > + girq->child_irq_domain_ops.free = rzg2l_gpio_irq_domain_free;
> > > > > > > + girq->ngirq = RZG2L_TINT_MAX_INTERRUPT;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think you need to provide a .init_valid_mask() callback, as
> > > > > > gpiochip_irqchip_remove() relies on that for destroying interrupts.
> > > > > Are you suggesting the callback to avoid looping through all the GPIO pins?
> > > >
> > > > gpiochip_irqchip_remove() does:
> > > >
> > > > /* Remove all IRQ mappings and delete the domain */
> > > > if (gc->irq.domain) {
> > > > unsigned int irq;
> > > >
> > > > for (offset = 0; offset < gc->ngpio; offset++) {
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > if (!gpiochip_irqchip_irq_valid(gc, offset))
> > > > continue;
> > > >
> > > > irq = irq_find_mapping(gc->irq.domain, offset);
> > > > irq_dispose_mapping(irq);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > irq_domain_remove(gc->irq.domain);
> > > >
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > The main thing is not about avoiding to loop through all GPIO pins,
> > > > but to avoid irq_{find,dispose}_mapping() doing the wrong thing.
> > > So in our case if we don't implement valid masks, that would mean all
> > > the pins are valid. irq_find_mapping() would return 0 if no mapping is
> > > found to the corresponding offset and irq_dispose_mapping() would
> > > simply return back without doing anything if virq == 0.(In this patch
> > > rzg2l_gpio_free() does call irq_{find,dispose}_mapping())
> >
> > But "offset" is a number from the GPIO offset space (0-122), while
>
> The "offset" reported by kernel is 120-511:

Offsets 120-511 are global GPIO numbers, i.e. starting from
gpio_chip.base.
The loop in gpiochip_irqchip_remove() uses local GPIO numbers,
starting from zero.
So these offsets are not the same.

Likewise, I believe the "offset" passed to irq_find_mapping() is an
irq number (hwirq) local to the domain, i.e. also starting at 0.
And it must be smaller than the size (32) passed to
irq_domain_create_hierarchy().

When passed a non-zero size, irq_domain_create_hierarchy()
calls into __irq_domain_add(), with size == hwirq_max == 32:

/**
* __irq_domain_add() - Allocate a new irq_domain data structure
* @fwnode: firmware node for the interrupt controller
* @size: Size of linear map; 0 for radix mapping only
* @hwirq_max: Maximum number of interrupts supported by controller
* @direct_max: Maximum value of direct maps; Use ~0 for no limit; 0 for no
* direct mapping
* @ops: domain callbacks
* @host_data: Controller private data pointer
*
* Allocates and initializes an irq_domain structure.
* Returns pointer to IRQ domain, or NULL on failure.
*/
struct irq_domain *__irq_domain_add(struct fwnode_handle *fwnode,
unsigned int size,
irq_hw_number_t hwirq_max, int
direct_max,
const struct irq_domain_ops *ops,
void *host_data)

> > > > But we do need to handle the (possible) mismatch between GPIO
> > > > offset (index) and IRQ offset in the above code.
> > > >
> > > Agreed, do you see any possibility of the mismatch I have missed?
> >
> > gpiochip_to_irq():
> >
> > if (irq_domain_is_hierarchy(domain)) {
> > struct irq_fwspec spec;
> >
> > spec.fwnode = domain->fwnode;
> > spec.param_count = 2;
> > spec.param[0] = gc->irq.child_offset_to_irq(gc, offset);
> > spec.param[1] = IRQ_TYPE_NONE;
> >
> > return irq_create_fwspec_mapping(&spec);
> > }
> >
> > Same here: in the absence of a child_offset_to_irq() callback,
> > the default gpiochip_child_offset_to_irq_noop() will be used,
> > assuming an identity mapping between GPIO numbers and IRQ
> > numbers.
> >
> Agreed, gpiochip_child_offset_to_irq_noop will return the "offset",
> but irq_create_fwspec_mapping() in gpiochip_to_irq() will return the
> virq number which will not be equal to the offset.

Shouldn't spec.param[0] be in the range 0-31, as 32 is the size of
the IRQ domain allocated?

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-05-16 09:14    [W:0.876 / U:0.096 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site