On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 at 10:16, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 03/01/2022 21:59, Sam Protsenko wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Dec 2021 at 21:34, Krzysztof Kozlowski > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Chanho and Sam, > >> > >> I am slowly finishing dtschema for Samsung pinctrl drivers [1] and I > >> noticed that Exynos850 and Auto v9 do not define interrupt in pinctrl > >> node with: wakeup-interrupt-controller. This is an interrupt muxing > >> several external wakeup interrupts, e.g. EINT16 - EINT31. > >> > >> For Exynos5433 this looks like: > >> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos5433.dtsi#L857 > >> > >> Missing muxed interrupt for Exynos850 and Autov9 might be fine, although > >> you should see in dmesg error log like: > >> "irq number for muxed EINTs not found" > >> > >> Can you check that your wakeup-interrupt-controller is properly defined > >> in DTSI? If yes, I will need to include such differences in the dtschema. > >> > > > > In case of Exynos850, no muxed interrupts exist for wakeup GPIO > > domains. Basically, "pinctrl_alive" and "pinctrl_cmgp" domains are > > wake-up capable, and they have dedicated interrupt for each particular > > GPIO pin. All those interrupts are defined in exynos850-pinctrl.dtsi > > file, in next nodes: > > - pinctrl_alive: gpa0..gpa4 (interrupt numbers 1..36) > > - pinctrl_cmgp: gpm0..gpm7 (interrupt numbers 39..46) > > > > All mentioned interrupts are wakeup interrupts, and there are no muxed > > ones. So it seems like it's not possible to specify "interrupts" > > property in pinctrl nodes with wakeup-interrupt-controller. The PM is > > not enabled in Exynos850 platform yet, so I can't really test if > > interrupts I mentioned are able to wake up the system. > > Thanks for confirming, I'll adjust the schema. > > > > > After adding this patch ("arm64: dts: exynos: Add missing gpm6 and > > gpm7 nodes to Exynos850"), I can't see this error message anymore: > > > > samsung-pinctrl 11c30000.pinctrl: irq number for muxed EINTs not found > > > > That's because exynos_eint_wkup_init() function exits in this check: > > > > if (!muxed_banks) { > > of_node_put(wkup_np); > > return 0; > > } > > > > But I actually can see another error message, printed in > > exynos_eint_gpio_init() function (for wake-up capable pinctrl nodes, > > because those nodes don't have "interrupts" property now -- you > > removed those in your patch): > > > > samsung-pinctrl 11850000.pinctrl: irq number not available > > samsung-pinctrl 11c30000.pinctrl: irq number not available > > > > which in turn leads to exynos_eint_gpio_init() function to exit with > > -EINVAL code in the very beginning, and I'm not sure if it's ok? As I > > said, those errors only appear after your patch ("arm64: dts: exynos: > > drop incorrectly placed wakeup interrupts in Exynos850"). > > Yeah, I replied to this next to my patch. I think my patch was not > correct and you need one - exactly one - interrupt for regular GPIO > interrupts. > I just need to remove ".eint_gpio_init" in exynos850_pin_ctrl[] for pinctrl_alive and pinctrl_gpmc. Those already have ".eint_wkup_init", which is enough to handle all interrupts (per-pin). GPIO_ALIVE and GPIO_GPMC lack EINT capabilities: judging from TRM, there are no EINT interrupts (like EINT_SVC, which is accessed in EINT ISR), and there are no EINT interrupts wired to GIC (like INTREQ__GPIO_ALIVE or INTREQ__GPIO_GPMC). With removed ".eint_gpio_init", I can see in "/proc/interrupts" that corresponding interrupts are still handled properly (because of .eint_wkup_init), and the error message is gone. Will send the patch soon -- please add it to the beginning of your series along with my other patch I already submitted. > > > > It raises next questions, which I'm trying to think over right now. > > Krzysztof, please let me know if you already have answers to those: > > > > 1. Regarding "wakeup-interrupt-controller" node (and > > exynos_eint_wkup_init() function): is it ok to not have "interrupts" > > property in there? Would corresponding interrupts specified in child > > nodes (gpa0..gpa4) function as wake-up interrupts in this case? Or > > pinctrl driver should be reworked somehow? > > Yes, it should be fine. The message should be changed from error to info > or even debug, maybe depending on SoC-type (so define in struct > samsung_pin_ctrl whether exynos_eint_wkup_init expects muxed wake-ip > interrupts). > > > > > 2. Regarding missing interrupts in pinctrl nodes (and corresponding > > error in exynos_eint_gpio_init() function): should it be reworked in > > some way for Exynos850? Error message seems invalid in Exynos850 case, > > and I'm not even sure if it's ok exynos_eint_gpio_init() fails. Should > > it be modified to work that error around, in case of Exynos850? > > > > All other pinctrl nodes have a muxed interrupt (except pinctrl_aud, > > but that's probably fine). > > The error message is valid - correctly points to wrong configuration. > All pinctrl nodes should have one interrupt, if they have GPIOs capable > of interrupt as a function (usually 0xf as GPIO CON register). Why > pinctrl_aud does not have it? Maybe the function EXT_INT (0xf) is not > available for its pins? > > Best regards, > Krzysztof
