On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 9:30 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 06-08-21, 10:00, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 9:44 AM Viresh Kumar via Stratos-dev > > <stratos-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On 05-08-21, 15:10, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > I hope this can still be simplified by working out better which state > > > > transitions are needed exactly. In particular, I would expect that we > > > > can get away with not sending a VIRTIO_GPIO_MSG_IRQ_TYPE > > > > for 'mask' state changes at all, but use that only for forcing 'enabled' > > > > state changes. > > > > > > Something like this ? > > > > > static void virtio_gpio_irq_mask(struct irq_data *d) > > > { > > > /* Nothing to do here */ > > > } > > > > You'd have to do /something/ here I think, if only setting the flag > > that we don't want to deliver the next interrupt. > > > > > static void virtio_gpio_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *d) > > > { > > > struct gpio_chip *gc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d); > > > struct virtio_gpio *vgpio = gpiochip_get_data(gc); > > > > > > /* Queue the buffer unconditionally on unmask */ > > > virtio_gpio_irq_prepare(vgpio, d->hwirq); > > > } > > > > And check the flag here to not requeue it if it's masked. > > I am not sure I understand why this would be required. If the > interrupt is getting disabled, then unmask will not get called here > and so we won't requeue anything. Same will happen with threaded > handlers where the interrupt gets unmasked at a later point of time. Ah, right. There is already a flag that gets checked by the caller. It does feel odd to have an empty 'irq_mask' callback though, so maybe there is still something missing, just not what I thought. It's probably the result of calling handle_level_irq(), which as you said is closer to what we want, but is not exactly what we need for this protocol. Arnd