On 18-11-06 20:50, Trent Piepho wrote: > On Mon, 2018-11-05 at 09:19 +0100, Marco Felsch wrote: > > On 18-11-02 23:05, Trent Piepho wrote: > > > On Fri, 2018-11-02 at 07:38 +0100, Marco Felsch wrote: > > > > > > > > > Interrupts types are specific to each interrupt controller, but there > > > > > is a standard set of flags that, AFAIK, every Linux controller uses. > > > > > These include IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH, IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING, > > > > > IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH, and so on. > > > > > > > > > > So you can support hardware that is inherently edge or level triggered. > > > > > > > > I've been spoken about gpio-controllers and AFAIK there are no edge > > > > types. Interrupt-Controller are a different story, as you pointed out > > > > above. > > > > > > You can use edge triggering with gpios. Just try writing "rising" or > > > "falling" into /sys/class/gpio/gpioX/edge > > > > Can we access the gpios trough the sysfs if they are requested by a > > driver? > > When I first did the sysfs interface for gpios, you could do that, but > David Brownell wanted it so that you can't access gpios via sysfs if a > driver requested them. The compromise was that *kernel* code can > explicitly export to sysfs a gpio that is used by a driver (ie. also > requested in kernel code), but you couldn't do it just from userspace. > > But that's irrelevant here. The point is that you can get edge > triggered interrupts on a gpio and if you don't believe me, just try it > for yourself and you'll see it works. The sysfs interface just > translates into the same calls a kernel driver could make. > > > > It's level you can't do sysfs. The irq masking necessary isn't > > > supported to get it to work in a useful way, i.e. without a live-lock > > > IRQ loop. > > > > > > But you can in the kernel. > > > > > > Normal process is to call gpiod_to_irq() and then use standard IRQF > > > flags to select level, edge, etc. > > > > Currently I using the gpiod_to_irq() function to convert the sense gpio > > into a irq, but I do some magic to determine the edge. I tought there > > might be reasons why there are no edge defines in > > include/dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h. > > Just request the interrupt with IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING and it will work on > almost any SoC. The reason you see no edge defines with gpio handles > is that edge and level triggering is a interrupt concept, not a gpio > concept. There are no level triggers defined for gpios either. The > active low/high flags just define what voltage should be considered > "asserted". They aren't intended to be related to interrupts. Okay, thanks for this hint. So a gpio marked as GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW will trigger a IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING requested interrupt if the gpio level (electrical) goes from 1->0? I didn't knew that. > > > Okay, so no polling for the current solution. Let me summarize our > > solution: > > - no polling (currently) > > - dt-node specifies a gpio instead of a interrupt > > -> gpio <-> irq mapping is done by gpiod_to_irq() and fails if gpio > > doesn't support irq's > > - more alarms per sensor > > > > Only one last thing I tought about: > > > > Using a flat design like you mentioned would lead into a "virtual" > > address conflict, since both sensors are on the same level. I tought > > about i2c/spi/muxes/graph-devices which don't support such "addressing" > > scheme. > > You mean a temp alarm and a voltage alarm could both be reg = <1>? I > don't think anything complains about that. But it does seem > undesirable. Yes, because both types are on the same hierarchy level. As I said it is more a dt-convention decision. > > hwmon_dev { > > compatible = "gpio-alarm"; > > bat@0 { > > reg = <0>; > > label = "Battery Pack1 Voltage"; > > type = "voltage"; > > alarm-type = <GPIO_ALARM_LCRIT, GPIO_ALARM_CRIT>; > > Would have to be <GPIO_ALARM_LCRIT>, <GPIO_ALARM_CRIT>; > > I'm not sure if dt bindings prefer symbolic integer constants vs > strings for something which is an enumeration like this. strings seem > more common to me, e.g. alarm-types = "lcrit", "crit"; That's a good question. I term of parsing, the non string variant should be faster. I don't have any preference, but will try the string variant first ;) Regards, Marco > > alarm-gpios = <&gpio3 15 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW > > &gpio3 16 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; > > }; > > bat@1 { > > reg = <1>; > > label = "Battery Pack2 Voltage"; > > alarm-type = <GPIO_ALARM_LCRIT, GPIO_ALARM_CRIT>; > > alarm-gpios = <&gpio3 9 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW > > &gpio3 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; > > }; > > cputemp@0 { > > reg = <0>; > > label = "CPU Temperature Critical"; > > type = "temperature"; > > alarm-type = <GPIO_ALARM_GENRIC>; > > alarm-gpios = <&gpio4 17 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; > > }; > > }; > > > > Where a more structured layout don't have this "issue". > > > > hwmon_dev { > > compatible = "gpio-alarm"; > > > > voltage { > > bat@0 { > > reg = <0>; > > label = "Battery Pack1 Voltage"; > > alarm-type = <GPIO_ALARM_LCRIT, GPIO_ALARM_CRIT>; > > alarm-gpios = <&gpio3 15 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW > > &gpio3 16 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; > > }; > > bat@1 { > > reg = <1>; > > label = "Battery Pack2 Voltage"; > > alarm-type = <GPIO_ALARM_LCRIT, GPIO_ALARM_CRIT>; > > alarm-gpios = <&gpio3 9 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW > > &gpio3 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; > > }; > > }; > > temperature { > > cputemp { > > label = "CPU Temperature Critical"; > > alarm-type = <GPIO_ALARM_GENRIC>; > > alarm-gpios = <&gpio4 17 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; > > }; > > }; > > }; > > > > We don't have to take this layout, we can also consider about devices: > > > > hwmon_dev { > > compatible = "gpio-alarm"; > > > > dev@0 { > > reg = <0>; > > voltage { > > label = "Battery Pack1 Voltage"; > > alarm-type = <GPIO_ALARM_LCRIT, GPIO_ALARM_CRIT>; > > alarm-gpios = <&gpio3 15 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW > > &gpio3 16 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; > > }; > > temperature { > > label = "Battery Pack1 Temperature Critical"; > > alarm-type = <GPIO_ALARM_GENRIC>; > > alarm-gpios = <&gpio4 17 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; > > }; > > }; > > dev@1 { > > reg = <1>; > > temperature { > > label = "CPU Temperature Critical"; > > alarm-type = <GPIO_ALARM_GENRIC>; > > alarm-gpios = <&gpio4 19 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; > > }; > > }; > > }; > > > > I don't think that is a issue at all, but I don't know the dt > > maintainers opinion of this theme. > > > > Regards, > > Marco