On 2022-07-13 12:08, Robert Marko wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 at 17:12, Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 13:44:45 +0100,
Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 11:42:32AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 20:51:12 +0100,
> > Robert Marko <robimarko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Commit 6c846d026d49 ("gpio: Don't fiddle with irqchips marked as
> > > immutable") added a warning to indicate if the gpiolib is altering the
> > > internals of irqchips.
> > >
> > > Following this change the following warning is now observed for the SPMI
> > > PMIC pinctrl driver:
> > > gpio gpiochip1: (200f000.spmi:pmic@0:gpio@c000): not an immutable chip, please consider fixing it!
> > >
> > > Fix this by making the irqchip in the SPMI PMIC pinctrl driver immutable.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Robert Marko <robimarko@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-spmi-gpio.c | 22 ++++++++++++----------
> > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-spmi-gpio.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-spmi-gpio.c
> > > index c3255b0bece4..406ee0933d0b 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-spmi-gpio.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-spmi-gpio.c
> > > @@ -171,7 +171,6 @@ struct pmic_gpio_state {
> > > struct regmap *map;
> > > struct pinctrl_dev *ctrl;
> > > struct gpio_chip chip;
> > > - struct irq_chip irq;
> > > u8 usid;
> > > u8 pid_base;
> > > };
> > > @@ -988,6 +987,17 @@ static void *pmic_gpio_populate_parent_fwspec(struct gpio_chip *chip,
> > > return fwspec;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static const struct irq_chip spmi_gpio_irq_chip = {
> > > + .name = "spmi-gpio",
> > > + .irq_ack = irq_chip_ack_parent,
> > > + .irq_mask = irq_chip_mask_parent,
> > > + .irq_unmask = irq_chip_unmask_parent,
> >
> > No, this is wrong. Please look at the documentation to see how you
> > must now directly call into the gpiolib helpers for these two
> > callbacks.
> >
>
> IIUC, you are referring to gpiochip_disable_irq() and
> gpiochip_enable_irq() APIs.
I am indeed.
> These APIs are supposed to let the gpiolib know about that the IRQ
> usage of these GPIOs. But for the case of hierarchial IRQ domain,
> isn't the parent is going to do that?
Why would it? The parent has no clue about what sits above it. In a
hierarchical configuration, each level is responsible for its own
level, and the GPIO layer should be responsible for its own
management.
> Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm afraid you are, and this patch is a fairly obvious change in
behaviour, as the callbacks you mention above are not called anymore,
while they were before.
If they are not necessary (for reasons I can't fathom), then this
should be clearly explained.
Hi Marc,
I will look at IRQ GPIO docs, but in this case, then we have more
conversions that
are not correct.
Then please point them out.
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
