Re: [PATCH] gpio: thunderx: fix irq_request_resources

[Tim Harvey <tharvey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 1:24 PM Robert Richter <rrichter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 13.03.20 12:41:19, Tim Harvey wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 12:12 PM Robert Richter <rrichter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 13.03.20 16:31:51, Robert Richter wrote:
> > > > On 11.03.20 08:43:53, Tim Harvey wrote:
> > > > > If there are no parent resources do not call irq_chip_request_resources_parent
> > > > > at all as this will return an error.
> > > > >
> > > > > This resolves a regression where devices using a thunderx gpio as an interrupt
> > > > > would fail probing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: 0d04d0c ("gpio: thunderx: Use the default parent apis for {request,release}_resources")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Tim Harvey <tharvey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  drivers/gpio/gpio-thunderx.c | 9 ++++++---
> > > > >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> > > Looking at the original code, the parent resources are requested only
> > > if existing. So the change is ok.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, the overall change using irq_chip_{request,
> > > release}_resources_parent() became pointless now. It is unreadable and
> > > more complex now. Thus, commit 0d04d0c should just be reverted.
> > >
> > > The function interface is limited. Instead of letting the child device
> > > deal with the parent, parent requests should be handled directly in
> > > irq_request_resources(). Another aspect is that the code for this
> > > driver has been already removed upstream and ti_sci_inta_msi.c is the
> > > last remaining user of it. This speaks also for a removal by a revert.
>
> > A revert does make the most sense to me and it works for 5.2, 5.3, and
> > 5.5 but the revert fails for 5.4 and needs some manual intervention.
>
> v5.4 should additionally revert a7fc89f9d5fc ("gpio: thunderx: Switch
> to GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP"). v5.5 contains this revert too (a564ac35d605
> Revert "gpio: thunderx: Switch to GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP") and the code in
> that area is the same then for all kernels from 5.2 to 5.5, which is
> basically a revert back to 5.1. I think this is ok.
>
> Do you have a particular test case to test the driver that I can use
> for my own testing?
>

Robert,

The hardware I have has an interrupt controller with its upstream
interrupt to an OctoenTX GPIO (and its driver is in progress and not
yet accepted upstream which means this issue in 5.2/5.3/5.4 doesn't
affect me). I'm unclear if you just need a device that has an
interrupt on the OcteonTX GPIO or if the device has to be an interrupt
controller to trigger the issue as is my case.

Tim