śr., 13 lut 2019 o 11:39 Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a):
>
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2019, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>
> > śr., 13 lut 2019 o 10:53 Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a):
> > >
> > > On Wed, 13 Feb 2019, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > >
> > > > śr., 13 lut 2019 o 10:25 Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a):
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, Lee Jones wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wt., 12 lut 2019 o 12:14 Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a):
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wt., 12 lut 2019 o 11:18 Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a):
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wt., 12 lut 2019 o 10:55 Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> napisał(a):
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > * The declaration of a superfluous struct
> > > > > > > > > > > > * 100 lines of additional/avoidable code
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Hacky hoop jumping trying to fudge VIRQs into resources
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Resources were designed for HWIRQs (unless a domain is present)
> > > > > > > > > > > > * Loads of additional/avoidable CPU cycles setting all this up
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > While the above may be right, this one is negligible and you know it. :)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You have nested for() loops. You *are* wasting lots of cycles.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Need I go on? :)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Surely the fact that you are using both sides of an API
> > > > > > > > > > > > (devm_regmap_init_i2c and regmap_irq_get_*) in the same driver, must
> > > > > > > > > > > > set some alarm bells ringing?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This whole HWIRQ setting, VIRQ getting, resource hacking is a mess.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > And for what? To avoid passing IRQ data to a child driver?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What do you propose? Should I go back to the approach in v1 and pass
> > > > > > > > > > > the regmap_irq_chip_data to child drivers?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'm saying you should remove all of this hackery and pass IRQs as they
> > > > > > > > > > are supposed to be passed (like everyone else does).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "like everyone else does" - different
> > > > > > > > > mfd drivers seem to be doing different things. Is a simple struct
> > > > > > > > > containing virtual irq numbers passed to sub-drivers fine?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How do you plan on deriving the VIRQs to place into the struct?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Exampe:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > struct max77650_gpio_pdata {
> > > > > > > int gpi_irq;
> > > > > > > };
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In MFD driver:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > struct max77650_gpio_pdata *gpio_data = devm_kmalloc(dev, sizeof(*gpio_data));
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > gpio_data->gpi_irq = regmap_irq_get_virq(irqchip_data, GPI_NUM);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > gpio_cell.platform_data = gpio_data;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In GPIO driver:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > struct max77650_gpio_pdata *gpio_data = pdev->dev.platform_data;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > int irq = gpio_data->gpi_irq;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Definitely not. What you're trying to do is a hack.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you're using Regmap to handle your IRQs, then you should use Regmap
> > > > > > in the client to pull them out. Setting them via Regmap, then pulling
> > > > > > them out again in the *same driver*, only to store them in platform
> > > > > > data to be passed to a child device is bonkers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *Either* use the MFD provided platform-data helpers *or* pass and
> > > > > > handle them via the Regmap APIs, *not* both.
> > > > >
> > > > > Right, a plan has been formed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hopefully this works and you can avoid all this dancing around.
> > > > >
> > > > > Firstly, you need to make a small change to:
> > > > >
> > > > > drivers/base/regmap/regmap-irq.c
> > > > >
> > > > > Add the following function:
> > > > >
> > > > > struct irq_domain *regmap_irq_get_domain(struct regmap *map)
> > > >
> > > > We already do have such function and a lot of mfd drivers actually use it.
> > >
> > > Even better.
> > >
> > > > > As you can see, it will return the IRQ Domain for the chip.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can then pass this IRQ domain to mfd_add_devices() and it will do
> > > > > the HWIRQ => VIRQ mapping for you on the fly. Meaning that you can
> > > > > remove all the nastiness in max77650_setup_irqs() and have the Input
> > > > > device use the standard (e.g. platform_get_irq()) APIs.
> > > > >
> > > > > How does that Sound?
> > > >
> > > > This does sound better! Why didn't you lead with that in the first place?
> > >
> > > I'm not even going to dignify that stupid question with a response.
> >
> > It's not a stupid question and you're being unnecessarily rude. As an
> > expert in the subsystem you maintain you could have answered simply
> > with a "this is wrong, retrieve the irq domain from the regmap
> > irq_chip and pass it over to mfd_add_devices, the mfd core will create
> > appropriate mappings".
>
> Could be culture clash, but I found the question offensive which is
> why I chose not to answer it. The reason is actually explained below:
>
It wasn't meant to be offensive. I guess when dealing with non-native
English speakers over e-mail it's best to assume good faith.
> "It's only the craziness in this patch which forced me to look into how
> Regmap handles IRQs and come up with a subsequent solution which fits
> your use-case."
>
> Thus the fact that a) Regmap used IRQ domains and b) the IRQ domain
> could be fetched and reused here didn't enter my thought process until
> I delved into the inner workings of Regmap.
>
> Yes, I know MFD pretty well, but I only tend to deep-dive into other
> subsystems, particularly ones as complicated as Regmap, when it's
> necessary to do so. Now I know a little more about it, I can provide
> the feedback you suggest going forward.
>
> > > > It's a pity it's not documented, I had to look at the code to find out
> > > > irq resources would get translated in mfd_add_devices() if a domain is
> > > > present.
> > >
> > > Where is it likely to be documented? MFD is pretty simple and seldom
> > > needs explanation. A 3 second look at the API you're trying to use
> > > (instead of blind copy & paste) would have told you that it's possible
> > > to take an IRQ domain as an argument.
> > >
> > > It's only the craziness in this patch which forced me to look into how
> > > Regmap handles IRQs and come up with a subsequent solution which fits
> > > your use-case.
> > >
> > > > In that case - I really don't see a reason to create a superfluous
> > > > structure to only hold the main regmap - we can very well get it from
> > > > the parent device in sub-drivers as I do now.
> > >
> > > The whole point of this solution is that you don't need to pass
> > > anything non-standard (i.e. not provided by the current APIs) to the
> > > child device.
> >
> > I don't understand what you're saying here.
>
> I'm saying that the structure you speak of is no longer required.
>
Thanks for clarifying.
Bartosz
