Hi, * Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> [210510 09:29]: > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 2:22 AM Dmitry Torokhov > <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 01:38:30AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > > > This edge setting should come from the device tree not > > > the driver. Also, most device trees sets this to the > > > falling edge, which is contradictory to what is hardcoded. > > > > I see there are 2 possibilities: > > > > 1. The driver has never worked > > 2. DT interrupt annotation is wrong. > > > > It would be nice to know if we are dealing with 1 or 2, as in case of #2 > > we need to adjust DTSes before this patch can be applied. > > I looked closer and unfortunately the mess and confusion > is bizarre. > > The DTS files we know of are: > arch/arm/boot/dts/am3517-som.dtsi - rising > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx28-tx28.dts - falling > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx35-eukrea-cpuimx35.dtsi - low > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx51-eukrea-cpuimx51.dtsi - low > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx53-tx53-x03x.dts - falling > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q-dhcom-som.dtsi - falling > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl-tx6.dtsi - none > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6ul-tx6ul.dtsi - none > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx7d-nitrogen7.dts - falling > arch/arm/boot/dts/logicpd-som-lv.dtsi - rising > arch/arm/boot/dts/logicpd-torpedo-baseboard.dtsi - rising > arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-gta04.dtsi - falling > arch/arm/boot/dts/omap3-n900.dts - rising > arch/arm/boot/dts/omap4-var-som-om44.dtsi - low > arch/arm/boot/dts/stm32mp15xx-dhcom-som.dtsi - falling > > We can assume that some of this is the result of board > engineers introducing inverters on the board as is custom, > so the flags are actually correct when set to falling, just > that we don't model the inverter. > > In the case of imx6qdl-tx6 and imx6ul-tx6ul with "none" IRQ > type I assume this flag in the driver is actually necessary > for the device to work at all. > > In the cases where rising is set, the addition of the flag is > plain tautology, just setting what is already set. > > In the cases where falling are set the interrupts will arrive > on both edges (if the hardware can provide that, which is > not always the case) and as a result fire twice as many > interrupts as they should, probably with zero effect on the > second IRQ, just reporting nothing. > > The combination with active low is weird. I wonder what > happens there. > > I am just confused now and have no idea what to do about > it... > > But I just CC all the Freescale and OMAP people who > seem to maintain these DTS files so they can clarify > how well assigned these edges, none and active low (!) > IRQs are. Maybe the GTA04 or LogicPD folks can check the interrupt edge direction for tsc2005 on the device end to see if inversion happens. So adding some more people to Cc. Looks like at least the tsc2005 data sheet says: "Interrupt output. Data available or PENIRQ depends on setting. Pin polarity with active low." So it seems the dts configuration should have level active low for the GPIO interrupt unless the hardware inverts it somewhere. If the edge configuration for a GPIO interrupt has been done for tsc2005 for PM wake purposes, there should be no longer need for it at least on omaps. Folks can just configure a dedicated wakeirq with interrupts-extended dts property and the i2c framework will handle that automatically :) There are some examples if you grep dts files for '"wakeup"'. Regards, Tony
