On 10.12.2024 16:18:07, Stefano Offredi wrote:
> > > Even with those lines of code, If I print spi->irq before the call
> > > to request_threaded_irq() it keeps different error codes
> > > values (-19, -22, depending on whether I set the gpio controller
> > > values in ACPI table).
> >
> > Just to clarify: from the Linux point of view "rx-int" is a GPIO, not an
> > interrupt. It's connected to the "nINT1/GPIO1" pin of the mcp251xfd and
> > this is optional. The IRQ which is available under spi->irq is connected
> > to the "nINT" pin of the mcp251xfd.
> >
> > > Even If I remove in ACPI table all the gpio references listed
> > > here below:
> > >
> > > - GpioInt (Edge, ActiveLow, ExclusiveAndWake, PullDefault...
> > > - Package () {"rx-int-gpios", Package () { ^CAN0, 0, 0, 0 } }
> > >
> > > the spi->irq keeps error value -2.
> >
> > I suggest to first remove all "rx-int" related stuff from your ACPI
> > table and concentrate that "spi->irq" has a proper value.
> >
> > The relevant code is in acpi_status acpi_register_spi_device():
> >
> > | https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.15/source/drivers/spi/spi.c#L2294
> >
>
> Ok thanks I will investigate on it.
>
> Just to be sure, will the driver, if rx-int and interrupt logic is not
"rx-int" is not used as an interrupt source. To keep things simple
forget about "rx-int" for now.
> used, perform a polling on the spi bus to check for messages incoming
> on the can controller?
No - polling is not implemented and makes IMHO no sense, as it's quite
some overhead.
> So I should see in this operating mode
> continuous spi communication on the bus, right?
If there's no traffic on the bus, you should only see very little SPI
communication. Just a read of the timestamp every 30s or so.
regards,
Marc
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde |
Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de |
Vertretung Nürnberg | Phone: +49-5121-206917-129 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-9 |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
