On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 10:25:01PM +0200, Marek Behún wrote: > On Thu, 21 Sep 2023 12:55:08 +0300 > Andy Shevchenko <andy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > > > > > + rising = reply[0] | (reply[2] << 8) | (reply[4] << 16) | > > > > > + (reply[6] << 24); > > > > > + falling = reply[1] | (reply[3] << 8) | (reply[5] << 16) | > > > > > + (reply[7] << 24); > > > > > > > > With a help of two masks, you can access to the both edges as to > > > > 64-bit value and simplify the code. > > > > > > Huh? As in > > > rising = reply & 0x00ff00ff00ff00ff; > > > falling = reply & 0xff00ff00ff00ff00; > > > ? > > > But then I can't or the rising bit with the corresponding falling bit > > > to get pending... > > > Or I guess i can with: > > > pending = rising & (pending >> 8); > > > > > > Am I understanding you correctly? > > > > > > But then I would need to store the mask in driver data as a 64-bit > > > value with half the data not used. Also the CPU is 32-bit. > > > > If you use proper bitmaps, perhaps this will be easier. You can use one for > > each and merge them whenever you want (with bitmap_or() call) or split (with > > bitmap_and() respectively): > > > > bitmap_or(full, raising, failing); // merge > > bitmap_and(raising, full, rasing_mask); // split > > Hmm. But then what? I or the result and use it as pending interrupt > bitmap, to be iterated over. The indexes of the bits correspond to the > constants in the MCU API. > > So after your suggestion I have rising and falling containgin > rising = 00rr00rr00rr00rr; /* r means rising bits */ > falling = 00ff00ff00ff00ff; /* f means falling bits */ > pending = rising | falling; > which means: > pending = pp00pp00pp00pp; /* p means pending bits */ > But these bit positions do not correspond to the interrupt number > anymore. > > I still think the de-interleaving of the buffer from > rr ff rr ff rr ff rr ff > into two words: > rising = rrrrrrrr; > falling = ffffffff; > is simpler... There are two sides of this: OS and hardware. See Xilinx GPIO driver how it's made there. But before going that way, check on https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZOMmuZuhdjA6mdIG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ That APIs you would need I am pretty sure. ... > > > > > + if (!(mcu->features & FEAT_NEW_INT_API)) > > > > > + > > > > > cancel_delayed_work_sync(&mcu->button_release_emul_work); + > > > > > + mutex_destroy(&mcu->lock); > > > > > > > > Wrong order? > > > > > > No, the mutex may be used in the work. Can't destroy it first. Or am I > > > misunderstanding something? > > > > I mean you are using a lot of devm(), can mutex be used in IRQ or whatever > > that can be triggered after this call? > > OK, I think I need to free the irq before canceling the work. Thank you! Can you rather switch everything to be devm managed? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko