Thankyou for the detailed comments.
On 15/01/14 14:15, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 3:52 PM, <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> ST Pincontroller GPIO bank can have one of the two possible types of
>> interrupt-wirings.
>
> Interesting :-)
>
>> +Pin controller node:
>> +Required properties:
>> - compatible : should be "st,<SOC>-<pio-block>-pinctrl"
>> like st,stih415-sbc-pinctrl, st,stih415-front-pinctrl and so on.
>> -- gpio-controller : Indicates this device is a GPIO controller
>> -- #gpio-cells : Should be one. The first cell is the pin number.
>> +- st,syscfg : Should be a phandle of the syscfg node.
>
> So why do you add this? This is totally unused by your driver.
The document got re-ordered by adding new information.
st,syscfg is not a new field, we use it for getting hold of regmap instance.
I will re-check if this addition was due to some white spaces.
>
>> - st,retime-pin-mask : Should be mask to specify which pins can be retimed.
>> If the property is not present, it is assumed that all the pins in the
>> bank are capable of retiming. Retiming is mainly used to improve the
>> IO timing margins of external synchronous interfaces.
>> -- st,bank-name : Should be a name string for this bank as
>> - specified in datasheet.
>
> Why do you have this property? The driver is not using it.
Its used for bank label.
>
> And what is wrong with just using that name for the node?
On ST chips the gpio banks are named irregularly in some instances.
They are named like PIO0, PIO1 , PIO100, PIO101 and so on. Same naming
is used across board schematics too, so Its easy for debugging if we
have this consistency in the driver as well.
As node names are in pio@address format, which are not same as
bank-names in the datasheet.
>
>> -- st,syscfg : Should be a phandle of the syscfg node.
>> +- ranges : specifies the ranges for the pin controller memory.
>
> And what are they used for? I've never seen this before.
This was suggested when I first submitted the driver.
The intention here was to describe the mapping between pinctrl (parent)
node and the gpio bank(children) nodes.
I will fix the document for this too in next version.
>
>> +Optional properties:
>> +- interrupts : Interrupt number of the irqmux. If the interrupt is shared
>> + with other gpio banks via irqmux.
>> + a irqline and gpio banks.
>> +- reg : irqmux memory resource. If irqmux is present.
>> +- reg-names : irqmux resource should be named as "irqmux".
>> +
>> +GPIO controller node.
>> +Required properties:
>> +- gpio-controller : Indicates this device is a GPIO controller
>> +- #gpio-cells : Should be one. The first cell is the pin number.
>> +- st,bank-name : Should be a name string for this bank as specified in
>> + datasheet.
>
> Again, why?
>
>> +Optional properties:
>> +- interrupts : Interrupt number for this gpio bank. If there is a dedicated
>> + interrupt wired up for this gpio bank.
>> +
>> +- interrupt-controller : Indicates this device is a interrupt controller. GPIO
>> + bank can be an interrupt controller iff one of the interrupt type either via
>> +irqmux or a dedicated interrupt per bank is specified.
>> +
>> +- #interrupt-cells: the value of this property should be 2.
>> + - First Cell: represents the external gpio interrupt number local to the
>> + external gpio interrupt space of the controller.
>> + - Second Cell: flags to identify the type of the interrupt
>> + - 1 = rising edge triggered
>> + - 2 = falling edge triggered
>> + - 3 = rising and falling edge triggered
>> + - 4 = high level triggered
>> + - 8 = low level triggered
>
> Correct, but reference symbols from:
> include/dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h
> in example.
Ok.
>
>
>>
>> Example:
>> pin-controller-sbc {
>
> Please put in an updated example making use of all the
> new props.
Will do it in next version.
>
>
> (...)
>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c
>
>> @@ -271,6 +276,8 @@ struct st_gpio_bank {
>> struct pinctrl_gpio_range range;
>> void __iomem *base;
>> struct st_pio_control pc;
>> + struct irq_domain *domain;
>> + int gpio_irq;
>
> Why are you putting this IRQ into the state container when it can be
> a function local variable in probe()?
I agree, this should be a local variable.
>
>> struct st_pinctrl {
>> @@ -284,6 +291,8 @@ struct st_pinctrl {
>> int ngroups;
>> struct regmap *regmap;
>> const struct st_pctl_data *data;
>> + void __iomem *irqmux_base;
>> + int irqmux_irq;
>
> Dito. I think.
I agree, this should be a local variable too.
>
>> +static int st_gpio_to_irq(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset)
>> +{
>> + struct st_gpio_bank *bank = gpio_chip_to_bank(chip);
>> + int virq;
>
> Just name this variable "irq". It is no more virtual than any other
> IRQ.
Ok.
>
>> +
>> + if (bank->domain && (offset < chip->ngpio))
>> + virq = irq_create_mapping(bank->domain, offset);
>
> No, don't do the create_mapping() call in the .to_irq() function.
> Call irq_create_mapping() for *all* valid hwirqs in probe() and use
> irq_find_mapping() here.
Ok.
>
>> +static void st_gpio_irq_disable(struct irq_data *d)
>> +{
>> + struct st_gpio_bank *bank = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
>> +
>> + writel(BIT(d->hwirq), bank->base + REG_PIO_CLR_PMASK);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void st_gpio_irq_enable(struct irq_data *d)
>> +{
>> + struct st_gpio_bank *bank = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
>> +
>> + writel(BIT(d->hwirq), bank->base + REG_PIO_SET_PMASK);
>> +}
>
> I *strongly* suspect that these two should be replaced with
> _mask()/_unmask() rather than using disable/enable.
>
> Because that seems to be what they are doing.
I will do this change in next version.
>
> (...)
>> +static void __gpio_irq_handler(struct st_gpio_bank *bank)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long port_in, port_mask, port_comp, port_active;
>> + int n;
>> +
>> + port_in = readl(bank->base + REG_PIO_PIN);
>> + port_comp = readl(bank->base + REG_PIO_PCOMP);
>> + port_mask = readl(bank->base + REG_PIO_PMASK);
>> +
>> + port_active = (port_in ^ port_comp) & port_mask;
>> +
>> + for_each_set_bit(n, &port_active, BITS_PER_LONG) {
>> + generic_handle_irq(irq_find_mapping(bank->domain, n));
>
> So what happens if new IRQs appear in the register while you are
> inside this loop?
I agree, there is a possibility of missing interrupt here, doing similar
to what you suggested makes sense.
>
> Check this recent patch:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=138979164119464&w=2
>
> Especially this:
>
> + for (;;) {
> + mask = ioread8(host->base + CLRHILVINT) & 0xff;
> + mask |= (ioread8(host->base + SECOINT) & SECOINT_MASK) << 8;
> + mask |= (ioread8(host->base + PRIMINT) & PRIMINT_MASK) << 8;
> + mask &= host->irq_high_enabled | (host->irq_sys_enabled << 8);
> + if (mask == 0)
> + break;
> + for_each_set_bit(n, &mask, BITS_PER_LONG)
> + generic_handle_irq(irq_find_mapping(host->domain, n));
> + }
>
>
>> +static struct irq_chip st_gpio_irqchip = {
>> + .name = "GPIO",
>> + .irq_disable = st_gpio_irq_disable,
>> + .irq_mask = st_gpio_irq_disable,
>> + .irq_unmask = st_gpio_irq_enable,
>
> Just implement mask/unmask as indicated earlier.
>
>> + .irq_set_type = st_gpio_irq_set_type,
>> +};
>
> You need to mark IRQ GPIO lines as used for IRQ.
>
> Add startup() and shutdown() hooks similar to those I add
> in this patch:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-gpio&m=138977709114785&w=2
Will add this in next version.
>
>> +static int st_gpio_irq_domain_xlate(struct irq_domain *d,
>> + struct device_node *ctrlr, const u32 *intspec, unsigned int intsize,
>> + irq_hw_number_t *out_hwirq, unsigned int *out_type)
>> +{
>> + struct st_gpio_bank *bank = d->host_data;
>> + int ret;
>> + int pin = bank->gpio_chip.base + intspec[0];
>> +
>> + if (WARN_ON(intsize < 2))
>> + return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> + *out_hwirq = intspec[0];
>> + *out_type = intspec[1] & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;
>> +
>> + ret = gpio_request(pin, ctrlr->full_name);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + ret = gpio_direction_input(pin);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>
> We recently concluded that you should *NOT* call
> gpio_request() and gpio_direction_input() from xlate or similar.
Great, I can get rid of this function and use generic xlate function
instead.
>
> Instead: set up the hardware directly in mask/unmask callbacks
> so that the irqchip can trigger IRQs directly without any
> interaction with the GPIO subsystem.
Ok, got it.
>
> By implementing the startup/shutdown hooks as indicated
> above you can still indicate to the GPIO subsystem what is
> going on and it will enforce that e.g. the line is not set to
> output.
>
Ok.
>> + bank->domain = irq_domain_add_linear(np,
>> + ST_GPIO_PINS_PER_BANK,
>> + &st_gpio_irq_ops, bank);
>> + if (!bank->domain)
>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to add irq domain for [%s]\n",
>> + np->full_name);
>> + } else {
>> + dev_info(dev, "No IRQ support for [%s] bank\n", np->full_name);
>
> Why is the [bank name] inside [brackets]?
There is no strong reason, I will remove it.
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
>
>
--
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
