Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 2022-06-09 11:00, Paul Cercueil wrote: >> Hi Aidan, >> Le mar., juin 7 2022 at 17:47:19 +0100, Aidan MacDonald >> <aidanmacdonald.0x0@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit : >>> Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>>> Hi Aidan, >>>> Le mar., juin 7 2022 at 12:05:25 +0100, Aidan MacDonald >>>> <aidanmacdonald.0x0@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit : >>>>> Update the driver to use an immutable IRQ chip to fix this warning: >>>>> "not an immutable chip, please consider fixing it!" >>>>> Signed-off-by: Aidan MacDonald <aidanmacdonald.0x0@xxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ingenic.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++------------- >>>>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ingenic.c >>>>> b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ingenic.c >>>>> index 1ca11616db74..37258fb05be3 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ingenic.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ingenic.c >>>>> @@ -135,7 +135,6 @@ struct ingenic_pinctrl { >>>>> struct ingenic_gpio_chip { >>>>> struct ingenic_pinctrl *jzpc; >>>>> struct gpio_chip gc; >>>>> - struct irq_chip irq_chip; >>>>> unsigned int irq, reg_base; >>>>> }; >>>>> @@ -3419,6 +3418,8 @@ static void ingenic_gpio_irq_enable(struct irq_data >>>>> *irqd) >>>>> struct ingenic_gpio_chip *jzgc = gpiochip_get_data(gc); >>>>> int irq = irqd->hwirq; >>>>> + gpiochip_enable_irq(gc, irq); >>>>> + >>>>> if (is_soc_or_above(jzgc->jzpc, ID_JZ4770)) >>>>> ingenic_gpio_set_bit(jzgc, JZ4770_GPIO_INT, irq, true); >>>>> else if (is_soc_or_above(jzgc->jzpc, ID_JZ4740)) >>>>> @@ -3443,6 +3444,8 @@ static void ingenic_gpio_irq_disable(struct >>>>> irq_data >>>>> *irqd) >>>>> ingenic_gpio_set_bit(jzgc, JZ4740_GPIO_SELECT, irq, false); >>>>> else >>>>> ingenic_gpio_set_bit(jzgc, JZ4730_GPIO_GPIER, irq, false); >>>>> + >>>>> + gpiochip_disable_irq(gc, irq); >>>>> } >>>>> static void ingenic_gpio_irq_ack(struct irq_data *irqd) >>>>> @@ -3684,6 +3687,20 @@ static void ingenic_gpio_irq_release(struct >>>>> irq_data >>>>> *data) >>>>> return gpiochip_relres_irq(gpio_chip, data->hwirq); >>>>> } >>>>> +static const struct irq_chip ingenic_gpio_irqchip = { >>>>> + .name = "gpio", >>>>> + .irq_enable = ingenic_gpio_irq_enable, >>>>> + .irq_disable = ingenic_gpio_irq_disable, >>>>> + .irq_unmask = ingenic_gpio_irq_unmask, >>>>> + .irq_mask = ingenic_gpio_irq_mask, >>>>> + .irq_ack = ingenic_gpio_irq_ack, >>>>> + .irq_set_type = ingenic_gpio_irq_set_type, >>>>> + .irq_set_wake = ingenic_gpio_irq_set_wake, >>>>> + .irq_request_resources = ingenic_gpio_irq_request, >>>>> + .irq_release_resources = ingenic_gpio_irq_release, >>>>> + .flags = IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND | IRQCHIP_IMMUTABLE, >>>>> +}; >>>>> + >>>>> static int ingenic_pinmux_set_pin_fn(struct ingenic_pinctrl *jzpc, >>>>> int pin, int func) >>>>> { >>>>> @@ -4172,20 +4189,8 @@ static int __init ingenic_gpio_probe(struct >>>>> ingenic_pinctrl *jzpc, >>>>> if (!jzgc->irq) >>>>> return -EINVAL; >>>>> - jzgc->irq_chip.name = jzgc->gc.label; >>>>> - jzgc->irq_chip.irq_enable = ingenic_gpio_irq_enable; >>>>> - jzgc->irq_chip.irq_disable = ingenic_gpio_irq_disable; >>>>> - jzgc->irq_chip.irq_unmask = ingenic_gpio_irq_unmask; >>>>> - jzgc->irq_chip.irq_mask = ingenic_gpio_irq_mask; >>>>> - jzgc->irq_chip.irq_ack = ingenic_gpio_irq_ack; >>>>> - jzgc->irq_chip.irq_set_type = ingenic_gpio_irq_set_type; >>>>> - jzgc->irq_chip.irq_set_wake = ingenic_gpio_irq_set_wake; >>>>> - jzgc->irq_chip.irq_request_resources = ingenic_gpio_irq_request; >>>>> - jzgc->irq_chip.irq_release_resources = ingenic_gpio_irq_release; >>>>> - jzgc->irq_chip.flags = IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND; >>>>> - >>>>> girq = &jzgc->gc.irq; >>>>> - girq->chip = &jzgc->irq_chip; >>>>> + gpio_irq_chip_set_chip(girq, &ingenic_gpio_irqchip); >>>> This will change each irq_chip's name to "gpio", do we want that? >>>> You didn't remove jzgc->irq_chip, so maybe what you could do is >>>> jzgc->irq_chip = ingenic_gpio_irqchip; >>>> jzgc->irq_chip.name = jzgc->gc.label; >>>> gpio_irq_chip_set_chip(girq, &jzgc->irq_chip); >>>> Thoughts? >>>> Cheers, >>>> -Paul >>>> >>> I wondered that myself, but it doesn't seem to affect anything except >>> what is displayed in /proc/interrupts. Is the name used anywhere else >>> where it might cause confusion? >> I don't really know. If it only really affects the display in >> /proc/interrupts then I'm fine with it. In doubt, I'd prefer to keep >> the existing names. >> >>> The only similar case I could find was pinctrl-microchip-sgpio.c where >>> microchip_sgpio_register_bank() is called in a loop and registers the >>> same irq chip repeatedly, so it's probably(?) okay to do this here. It >>> seems to defeat the point of immutable irqchips if they just have to be >>> copied anyway... >> The point of immutable irqchips is that they aren't modified by the >> core, if I understand it correctly. Immutable doesn't mean it has to >> be static const. > > I want these to be made const. I agree that the fancy string should > be kept (sadly), as it is a userspace visible change, and we don't > do that. > > You can solve it using the irq_print_chip() callback as part of > your irq_chip structures. See 3344265a2692 for an example. > > Thanks, > > M. Thanks for the tip! I'll do that and send a v2.