Hi Prabhakar, On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 3:56 PM Lad, Prabhakar <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2022 at 7:53 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 7:36 PM Lad, Prabhakar > > <prabhakar.csengg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 8:39 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 8:32 PM Lad Prabhakar > > > > <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Add IRQ domian to RZ/G2L pinctrl driver to handle GPIO interrupt. > > > > > GPIO0-GPIO122 pins can be used as IRQ lines but only 32 pins can be > > > > > used as IRQ lines at given time. Selection of pins as IRQ lines > > > > > is handled by IA55 (which is the IRQC block) which sits in between the > > > > > GPIO and GIC. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > Thanks for your patch! > > > > > > > > > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/renesas/pinctrl-rzg2l.c > > > > > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/renesas/pinctrl-rzg2l.c > > > > > > > > > static int rzg2l_gpio_register(struct rzg2l_pinctrl *pctrl) > > > > > { > > > > > struct device_node *np = pctrl->dev->of_node; > > > > > struct gpio_chip *chip = &pctrl->gpio_chip; > > > > > const char *name = dev_name(pctrl->dev); > > > > > + struct irq_domain *parent_domain; > > > > > struct of_phandle_args of_args; > > > > > + struct device_node *parent_np; > > > > > + struct gpio_irq_chip *girq; > > > > > int ret; > > > > > > > > > > + parent_np = of_irq_find_parent(np); > > > > > + if (!parent_np) > > > > > + return -ENXIO; > > > > > + > > > > > + parent_domain = irq_find_host(parent_np); > > > > > + of_node_put(parent_np); > > > > > + if (!parent_domain) > > > > > + return -EPROBE_DEFER; > > > > > + > > > > > ret = of_parse_phandle_with_fixed_args(np, "gpio-ranges", 3, 0, &of_args); > > > > > if (ret) { > > > > > dev_err(pctrl->dev, "Unable to parse gpio-ranges\n"); > > > > > @@ -1138,6 +1330,15 @@ static int rzg2l_gpio_register(struct rzg2l_pinctrl *pctrl) > > > > > chip->base = -1; > > > > > chip->ngpio = of_args.args[2]; > > > > > > > > > > + girq = &chip->irq; > > > > > + girq->chip = &rzg2l_gpio_irqchip; > > > > > + girq->fwnode = of_node_to_fwnode(np); > > > > > + girq->parent_domain = parent_domain; > > > > > + girq->child_to_parent_hwirq = rzg2l_gpio_child_to_parent_hwirq; > > > > > + girq->populate_parent_alloc_arg = rzg2l_gpio_populate_parent_fwspec; > > > > > + girq->child_irq_domain_ops.free = rzg2l_gpio_irq_domain_free; > > > > > + girq->ngirq = RZG2L_TINT_MAX_INTERRUPT; > > > > > + > > > > > > > > I think you need to provide a .init_valid_mask() callback, as > > > > gpiochip_irqchip_remove() relies on that for destroying interrupts. > > > Are you suggesting the callback to avoid looping through all the GPIO pins? > > > > gpiochip_irqchip_remove() does: > > > > /* Remove all IRQ mappings and delete the domain */ > > if (gc->irq.domain) { > > unsigned int irq; > > > > for (offset = 0; offset < gc->ngpio; offset++) { > > if (!gpiochip_irqchip_irq_valid(gc, offset)) > > continue; > > > > irq = irq_find_mapping(gc->irq.domain, offset); > > irq_dispose_mapping(irq); > > } > > > > irq_domain_remove(gc->irq.domain); > > > > } > > > > The main thing is not about avoiding to loop through all GPIO pins, > > but to avoid irq_{find,dispose}_mapping() doing the wrong thing. > So in our case if we don't implement valid masks, that would mean all > the pins are valid. irq_find_mapping() would return 0 if no mapping is > found to the corresponding offset and irq_dispose_mapping() would > simply return back without doing anything if virq == 0.(In this patch > rzg2l_gpio_free() does call irq_{find,dispose}_mapping()) But "offset" is a number from the GPIO offset space (0-122), while irq_find_mapping() expects a number from the domain's IRQ space, which is only 0-31? > > The loop is over all GPIO offsets, while not all of them are mapped > > to valid interrupts. Does the above work correctly? > > > I haven't tested unloading the pinctrl driver which should call > gpiochip_irqchip_remove() (we don't have remove call back for pinctrl > driver) > > > > > However, the mask will need to be dynamic, as GPIO interrupts can be > > > > mapped and unmapped to one of the 32 available interrupts dynamically, > > > > right? > > > Yep that's correct. > > > > > > > I'm not sure if that can be done easily: if gpiochip_irqchip_irq_valid() > > > > is ever called too early, before the mapping is done, it would fail. > > > > > > > The mask initialization is a one time process and that is during > > > adding the GPIO chip. At this stage we won't be knowing what will be > > > the valid GPIO pins used as interrupts. Maybe the core needs to > > > implement a callback which lands in the GPIO controller driver to tell > > > if the gpio irq line is valid. This way we can handle dynamic > > > interrupts. > > > > Upon closer look, I think the mask is a red herring, and we don't > > need it. > Agreed. > > > But we do need to handle the (possible) mismatch between GPIO > > offset (index) and IRQ offset in the above code. > > > Agreed, do you see any possibility of the mismatch I have missed? gpiochip_to_irq(): if (irq_domain_is_hierarchy(domain)) { struct irq_fwspec spec; spec.fwnode = domain->fwnode; spec.param_count = 2; spec.param[0] = gc->irq.child_offset_to_irq(gc, offset); spec.param[1] = IRQ_TYPE_NONE; return irq_create_fwspec_mapping(&spec); } Same here: in the absence of a child_offset_to_irq() callback, the default gpiochip_child_offset_to_irq_noop() will be used, assuming an identity mapping between GPIO numbers and IRQ numbers. So perhaps 1. you need to provide a child_offset_to_irq() callback, 2. gpiochip_irqchip_remove() needs to apply the child_offset_to_irq() mapping too? 3. you do need the mask, or let child_offset_to_irq() an error code, to avoid irq_{find,dispose}_mapping() handling non-existent irqs? Or am I missing something? I guess this is easy to verify by adding some debug prints to the code. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds