On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>
> > wt., 12 lut 2019 o 12:14 Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a):
> > >
> > > On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > >
> > > > wt., 12 lut 2019 o 11:18 Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a):
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > wt., 12 lut 2019 o 10:55 Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a):
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > * The declaration of a superfluous struct
> > > > > > > * 100 lines of additional/avoidable code
> > > > > > > * Hacky hoop jumping trying to fudge VIRQs into resources
> > > > > > > * Resources were designed for HWIRQs (unless a domain is present)
> > > > > > > * Loads of additional/avoidable CPU cycles setting all this up
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While the above may be right, this one is negligible and you know it. :)
> > > > >
> > > > > You have nested for() loops. You *are* wasting lots of cycles.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Need I go on? :)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Surely the fact that you are using both sides of an API
> > > > > > > (devm_regmap_init_i2c and regmap_irq_get_*) in the same driver, must
> > > > > > > set some alarm bells ringing?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This whole HWIRQ setting, VIRQ getting, resource hacking is a mess.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And for what? To avoid passing IRQ data to a child driver?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you propose? Should I go back to the approach in v1 and pass
> > > > > > the regmap_irq_chip_data to child drivers?
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm saying you should remove all of this hackery and pass IRQs as they
> > > > > are supposed to be passed (like everyone else does).
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "like everyone else does" - different
> > > > mfd drivers seem to be doing different things. Is a simple struct
> > > > containing virtual irq numbers passed to sub-drivers fine?
> > >
> > > How do you plan on deriving the VIRQs to place into the struct?
> >
> > Exampe:
> >
> > struct max77650_gpio_pdata {
> > int gpi_irq;
> > };
> >
> > In MFD driver:
> >
> > struct max77650_gpio_pdata *gpio_data = devm_kmalloc(dev, sizeof(*gpio_data));
> >
> > gpio_data->gpi_irq = regmap_irq_get_virq(irqchip_data, GPI_NUM);
> >
> > gpio_cell.platform_data = gpio_data;
> >
> > In GPIO driver:
> >
> > struct max77650_gpio_pdata *gpio_data = pdev->dev.platform_data;
> >
> > int irq = gpio_data->gpi_irq;
>
> Definitely not. What you're trying to do is a hack.
>
> If you're using Regmap to handle your IRQs, then you should use Regmap
> in the client to pull them out. Setting them via Regmap, then pulling
> them out again in the *same driver*, only to store them in platform
> data to be passed to a child device is bonkers.
>
> *Either* use the MFD provided platform-data helpers *or* pass and
> handle them via the Regmap APIs, *not* both.
Right, a plan has been formed.
Hopefully this works and you can avoid all this dancing around.
Firstly, you need to make a small change to:
drivers/base/regmap/regmap-irq.c
Add the following function:
struct irq_domain *regmap_irq_get_domain(struct regmap *map)
As you can see, it will return the IRQ Domain for the chip.
You can then pass this IRQ domain to mfd_add_devices() and it will do
the HWIRQ => VIRQ mapping for you on the fly. Meaning that you can
remove all the nastiness in max77650_setup_irqs() and have the Input
device use the standard (e.g. platform_get_irq()) APIs.
How does that Sound?
--
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
