Re: [PATCH V6] gpio: virtio: Add IRQ support

[Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 7:34 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 20-10-21, 18:10, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 20, 2021, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:

...

> > > +       case IRQ_TYPE_NONE:
> > > +               type = VIRTIO_GPIO_IRQ_TYPE_NONE;
> > > +               break;
> >
> > IIRC you add dead code. IRQ framework never calls this if type is not set.
>
> Yes, but it is allowed to call
>
> irq_set_irq_type(irq, IRQ_TYPE_NONE);
>
> and the irq framework won't disallow it AFAICT.

That's true, but how you may end up in this callback with a such?
What the meaning of that call to the user?

...

> > >  struct virtio_gpio_config {
> > >         __le16 ngpio;
> > >         __u8 padding[2];
> > > @@ -44,4 +56,17 @@ struct virtio_gpio_response_get_names {
> > >         __u8 value[];
> > >  };
> > >
> > > +/* Virtio GPIO IRQ Request / Response */
> > > +struct virtio_gpio_irq_request {
> > > +       __le16 gpio;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +struct virtio_gpio_irq_response {
> > > +       __u8 status;
> > > +};
> > >
> > I’m wondering if those above should be packed.
>
> You are talking about the newly added ones or the ones before ?
>
> In any case, they are all already packed (i.e. they have explicit
> padding wherever required) and properly aligned. Compiler won't add
> any other padding to them.

Is it only for 64-bit to 64-bit communications?
If there is a possibility to have 32-bit to 64-bit or vice versa
communication you have a problem.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko