On 29/11/2023 08:07, Youngmin Nam wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 03:35:53PM -0600, Sam Protsenko wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 1:29 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski >> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On 28/11/2023 02:01, Youngmin Nam wrote: >>>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 10:54:56AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>> On 26/11/2023 10:46, Youngmin Nam wrote: >>>>>> To support affinity setting for non wake up external gpio interrupt, >>>>>> add irq_set_affinity callback using irq number from pinctrl driver data. >>>>>> >>>>>> Before this patch, changing the irq affinity of gpio interrupt is not possible: >>>>>> >>>>>> # cat /proc/irq/418/smp_affinity >>>>>> 3ff >>>>>> # echo 00f > /proc/irq/418/smp_affinity >>>>> >>>>> Does this command succeed on your board? >>>>> >>>> Yes. >>> >>> Hm, fails all the time one mine. >>> >> >> I tried to test this patch on E850-96, and an attempt to write into >> smp_affinity (for some GPIO irq) also fails for me: >> >> # echo f0 > smp_affinity >> -bash: echo: write error: Input/output error >> >> When I add some pr_err() to exynos_irq_set_affinity(), I can't see >> those printed in dmesg. So I guess exynos_irq_set_affinity() doesn't >> get called at all. So the error probably happens before >> .irq_set_affinity callback gets called. >> >> Youngmin, can you please try and test this patch on E850-96? This >> board is already supported in upstream kernel. For example you can use >> "Volume Up" interrupt for the test, which is GPIO irq. >> > > I intened this affinity setting would work only on *Non* Wakeup External Interrupt. > The "Volume Up" on E850-96 board is connected with "gpa0-7" and > that is Wakeup External interrupt so that we can't test the callback. > > I couldn't find out a pin for the test on E850-96 board yet. > We can test if there is a usage of *Non" Wake up External Interrupt of GPIO > on E850-96 board. > > Do you have any idea ? Please test on any upstream platform or upstream your existing platform. I hesitate to take this change because I don't trust Samsung that this was tested on mainline kernel. OK, for sure 100% it was not tested on mainline, but I am afraid that differences were far beyond just missing platforms. Therefore the issue might or might not exist at all. Maybe issue is caused by other Samsung non-upstreamed code. Best regards, Krzysztof
