On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 06:37:41PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 6:21 PM Thomas Bogendoerfer > <tsbogend@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > +static void idt_gpio_dispatch(struct irq_desc *desc) > > +{ > > + struct gpio_chip *gc = irq_desc_get_handler_data(desc); > > + struct idt_gpio_ctrl *ctrl = gpiochip_get_data(gc); > > + struct irq_chip *host_chip = irq_desc_get_chip(desc); > > + unsigned int bit, virq; > > + unsigned long pending; > > + > > + chained_irq_enter(host_chip, desc); > > + > > + pending = readl(ctrl->pic + IDT_PIC_IRQ_PEND); > > + pending &= ~ctrl->mask_cache; > > + for_each_set_bit(bit, &pending, gc->ngpio) { > > > + virq = irq_linear_revmap(gc->irq.domain, bit); > > Is it guaranteed to be linear always? yes > > + if (virq) > > + generic_handle_irq(virq); > > + } > > + > > + chained_irq_exit(host_chip, desc); > > +} > > ... > > > + if (sense & ~(IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)) > > There is a _BOTH variant. that's IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH. LEVEL_BOTH would be an interesing concept. > > + ilevel = readl(ctrl->gpio + IDT_GPIO_ILEVEL); > > + if (sense & IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH) > > + ilevel |= BIT(d->hwirq); > > + else if (sense & IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW) > > + ilevel &= ~BIT(d->hwirq); > > > + else > > + return -EINVAL; > > Is it a double check of the above? no, the above test is for anything not LEVEL and this now takes care to be at least LEVEL_LOW or LEVEL_HIGH. This doesn't check for LOW|HIGH, which I assumed nobody tries to set... > > + ctrl->gc.parent = dev; > > Wondering if it's already done by GPIO library. no it uses it: if (gc->parent) { gdev->dev.parent = gc->parent; gdev->dev.of_node = gc->parent->of_node; } > ... > > > + ctrl->gc.ngpio = ngpios; > > Shouldn't you do this before calling for bgpio_init()? no, bgpio_init() initializes ngpios to size of register width, which is 32 for this hardware. And this statement restricts it to the real available number of gpios. > ... > > > + parent_irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(pdev->dev.of_node, 0); > > platform_get_irq() ?.. yes, looks better :-) > > + /* Mask interrupts. */ > > + ctrl->mask_cache = 0xffffffff; > > + writel(ctrl->mask_cache, ctrl->pic + IDT_PIC_IRQ_MASK); > > What about using ->init_hw() call back? sure, doesn't look like it's worth the effort, but I changed it. > > + girq->handler = handle_level_irq; > > handle_bad_irq() the hardware only supports level interrupts. That's also why there is no handler change in idt_gpio_irq_set_type. Thomas. -- Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]