Hello Nicolas,
On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 06:19:55PM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> Le 22/01/2015 18:14, Boris Brezillon a écrit :
> > On Thu, 22 Jan 2015 17:56:44 +0100
> > Sylvain Rochet <sylvain.rochet@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > -static const struct usba_udc_errata at91sam9g45_errata = {
> > > +static const struct usba_udc_caps at91sam9g45_caps = {
> > > .pulse_bias = at91sam9g45_pulse_bias,
> > > + .irq_single_edge_support = true,
>
> Nope! at91sam9g45 doesn't have this property. You'll have to create
> another compatible string and capabilities structure
> ("atmel,at91sam9x5-udc")
Oops.
> But still, I don't know if it's the proper approach. The possibility to
> trigger an IRQ on both edges or a single edge is a capacity of the gpio
> controller, not the USBA IP. So, it's a little bit strange to have this
> capability here.
I agree.
> I don't know if it's actually feasible but trying to configure the IRQ
> on a single edge, testing if it's accepted by the GPIO irq controller
> and if not, falling back to a "both edge" pattern. Doesn't it look like
> a way to workaround this issue nicely? Can you give it a try?
Tried, it works, but it displays the following message from
__irq_set_trigger() [1] during devm_request_threaded_irq(…,
IRQF_TRIGGER_RISING, …) on boards which does not support single-edge
IRQ:
genirq: Setting trigger mode 1 for irq 176 failed (gpio_irq_type+0x0/0x34)
Is it acceptable ?
If not, is udc->caps->irq_single_edge_support boolean acceptable ?
If not, I am ok to drop the feature, this is only a bonus.
Sylvain
[1] http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/kernel/irq/manage.c#L619
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
