On 09/16/2013 07:09 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 09/16/2013 10:03 AM, Lars Poeschel wrote:
>> On Monday 16 September 2013 13:43:50, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 09/10/2013 06:52 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>>> On 09/11/2013 12:34 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>>> On 09/10/2013 03:37 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 01:53:47PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>>>>> Doesn't this patch call gpio_request() on the GPIO first, and
>>>>>>> hence prevent the driver's own gpio_request() from succeeding,
>>>>>>> since the GPIO is already requested? If this is not a problem, it
>>>>>>> sounds like a bug in gpio_request() not ensuring mutual exclusion
>>>>>>> for the GPIO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or at the very least something that's likely to break in the
>>>>>> future.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at the GPIO code, it already prevents double-requests:
>>>>>> if (test_and_set_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &desc->flags) == 0) {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> desc_set_label(desc, label ? : "?");
>>>>>> status = 0;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> status = -EBUSY;
>>>>>> module_put(chip->owner);
>>>>>> goto done;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> And I tested it in practice, and it really does fail.
>>>>
>>>> I'm a bit confused now. Doesn't the fact that gpio_request() prevents
>>>> double-requests mean that the use-case that you say that have not been
>>>> covered by this patch can't actually happen?
>>>>
>>>> I mean, if when using board files an explicit call to gpio_request() is
>>>> made by platform code then a driver can't call gpio_request() for the
>>>> same gpio. So this patch shouldn't cause any regression since is just
>>>> auto-requesting a GPIO when is mapped as an IRQ in a DT which basically
>>>> will be the same that was made by board files before.
>>>
>>> I'm not familiar with the board file path; Linus describe this.
>>
>> It seems Linus is busy, I'll try to help out.
>>
>>> It sounds like that path is for the case where a driver /only/ cares
>>> about using a pin as an IRQ, and hence the driver only calls
>>> request_irq(). The board file is (earlier) calling gpio_request() in
>>> order to set up that input pin to work correctly as an IRQ. Hence, there
>>> is no double-call to gpio_request().
>>
>> No, a board file is not a path or something. A board file describes the wirings
>> and specifics of an (embedded) computer in C code. The complete knowledge of
>> how things are connected on a board and which drivers to use is in this piece
>> of code. Devicetree replaces legacy board files. These two do pretty much the
>> same, but board files have more power, because they are executed and can
>> contain whatever code is needed to setup a board.
>> But you are right, the driver only calls request_irq(), the board file set up
>> the pin before and told the driver which irq to use.
>
> path == code path, or execution path. I'm well aware of what board files
> are in general.
>
> I'm just not familiar with board files that employ this particular hack.
>
>>> The case I said wouldn't work is:
>>>
>>> * This patch calls gpio_request() in order to make the pin work as an IRQ.
>>>
>>> * Driver uses the pin as both a GPIO and an IRQ, and hence calls
>>> gpio_request() and request_irq().
>>>
>>> So, there's a double-call to gpio_request(), which fails, and the driver
>>> fails to probe.
>>
>> Again, no. In that case you don't define your pin as irq in the device tree,
>> but only as gpio. The driver knows how to handle gpios and turn them into irqs
>> so you have to present it a gpio not an irq. In that case the patch will not
>> call gpio_request() and there is no double-call to gpio_request().
>
> That is a way to make this patch work, yes. However, there's no
> guarantee that every driver or DT binding works this way. Forcing
> bindings to work that way is forcing Linux-internal details upon
> bindings, which should not be done. Put another way, I don't believe
> there's any rule when writing DT bindings that states that bindings must
> not describe the same pin as both a GPIO and an IRQ, although admittedly
> that may be unusual.
>
> ...
>> I agree with you that it would be the best if the only call would be
>> request_irq and the chip driver programs the HW appropriately. It would be a
>> dream, but unfortunately this is not possible at the moment. This is something
>> that Linus pointed out very very early in this whole discussion. The gpio and
>> irq frameworks don't share any information. The irq framework has no chance to
>> program the HW, because it will never find the related gpio.
>> For this to work the frameworks have to change (and possibly all drivers/board
>> files/whatever using request_irq() and/or request_gpio()) have to change.
>> That is something that I do not dare to do alone.
>
> This is a controller-specific issue, and has nothing to do with the GPIO
> or IRQ frameworks. The driver for the combined irq/gpio_chip simply
> needs to program the HW when the IRQ is requested or set up. The Tegra
> driver already works this way, so there's actual proof that it is
> possible to do this in practice.
>
Hi Stephen,
I finally had some time to look at this and tried what you suggested, that is
programming the hardware directly to do the setup when a IRQ is requested.
I tested booting my OMAP3 board with DT and legacy booting and it both cases it
works as expected.
I sent a RFC patch "[RFC] gpio/omap: auto-setup a GPIO when used as an IRQ" [1].
It would be great if I can get some feedback from you to see if that is what you
meant.
Thanks a lot and best regards,
Javier
[1]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/22/78
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
