On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 01:18:25PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 21:26, Daniel Thompson
> <daniel.thompson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 07:56:19PM +0530, Sumit Garg wrote:
> > > From: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Sumit, to some extent this mail is me yelling at myself two years ago
> > although, in my defence, at the time I choose not to post it because I
> > knew it wasn't right.
> >
> > I'm a bit concerned to see the TODO: comment critiquing this interface
> > being removed (from patch 3) without this patch being changed to
> > address that comment.
> >
>
> I did consider that comment but I couldn't think of a normal scenario
> where request_irq() should fail. And in case it fails as well, I did
> put in "WARN_ON(res);" so that the user is notified of that particular
> error scenario.
>
> >
> > > Add new API: poll_get_irq() to the polling interface in order for user
> > > of polling interface to retrieve allocated IRQ corresponding to
> > > underlying serial device.
> > >
> > > Although, serial interface still works in polling mode but interrupt
> > > associated with serial device can be leveraged for special purposes like
> > > debugger(kgdb) entry.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Thompson <daniel.thompson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> > > include/linux/serial_core.h | 1 +
> > > include/linux/tty_driver.h | 1 +
> > > 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c b/drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c
> > > index 66a5e2f..1bb033c 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/serial_core.c
> > > @@ -2470,6 +2470,23 @@ static void uart_poll_put_char(struct tty_driver *driver, int line, char ch)
> > > port->ops->poll_put_char(port, ch);
> > > uart_port_deref(port);
> > > }
> > > +
> > > +static int uart_poll_get_irq(struct tty_driver *driver, int line)
> > > +{
> > > + struct uart_driver *drv = driver->driver_state;
> > > + struct uart_state *state = drv->state + line;
> > > + struct uart_port *port;
> > > + int ret = -ENODEV;
> > > +
> > > + port = uart_port_ref(state);
> > > + if (port && port->ops->poll_get_irq) {
> > > + ret = port->ops->poll_get_irq(port);
> > > + uart_port_deref(port);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + return ret;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > static const struct tty_operations uart_ops = {
> > > @@ -2505,6 +2522,7 @@ static const struct tty_operations uart_ops = {
> > > .poll_init = uart_poll_init,
> > > .poll_get_char = uart_poll_get_char,
> > > .poll_put_char = uart_poll_put_char,
> > > + .poll_get_irq = uart_poll_get_irq,
> >
> > The TODO comments claimed this API was bogus because it doesn't permit
> > a free and that can cause interoperation problems with the real serial
> > driver. I'll cover some of that in a reply to patch 3 but for now.
> >
> > Anyhow, for this patch, what are the expected semantics for
> > uart_poll_get_irq().
>
> Currently, the expected use for this API is to enable uart RX
> interrupts and return corresponding IRQ id.
>
> Although, we can make this interface modular as follows:
>
> .poll_get_irq
> .poll_enable_rx_int
> .poll_disable_rx_int
>
> Your views?
A direct reply is to ask what the purpose of poll_enable_rx_int()
is? It appears to be making something modular without any reason to do
so.
More generally lets ask some more questions:
1. What serial hardware and/or driver state change happens when we call
poll_get_irq()
2. After a call to poll_get_irq() are there any new restrictions on
the underlying serial driver?
3. Does implementing poll_get_irq() create an implied change of
contract to any other polling function (I think yes, because
poll_read_char() will now have to acknowledge an interrupt if
the interrupt flags are edge triggered)?
4. To what extent, if any, do we have to support disconnection of
kgdb_nmi?
5. Is the API matched with how it will be used by the layers above?
(top level uses a request_irq approach, low level is using a
let me have the irq number approach)
An interesting idea to explore is using a different verb for
poll_get_irq(). Perhaps poll_borrow_irq()? It is now much clearer that
we are stealing the IRQ and making it unusable by the underlying serial
driver.
> > In particular how do they ensure correct interlocking with the real
> > serial driver underlying it (if kgdb_nmi is active on a serial port
> > then the underlying driver better not be active at the same time).
> >
>
> AFAIU kgdb_nmi feature, it registers a new tty driver (ttyNMI0) which
> is expected to work alongside underlying tty driver (eg. ttyAMA0 with
> amba-pl011). So ttyAMA0 will only become active if user-space tries to
> interact with /dev/ttyAMA0 like:
>
> # echo "Hello World!" > /dev/ttyAMA0
>
> So I would like to understand the downsides of having both of them
> active at the same time using shared IRQ (although that won't be
> possible with NMI as that doesn't support shared mode)?
It is likely that one of the interrupt handlers will become unreachable
since the first handler to execute will clear the interrupt flags. This
will result in anything waiting for the broken driver getting stuck and
not reporting an error code.
That isn't acceptable.
Daniel.
