From: joelf@ti.com (Joel Fernandes)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] RFC: interrupt consistency check for OF GPIO IRQs
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 02:00:34 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <522EC392.8070002@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51F8CC35.1070704@collabora.co.uk>
On 07/31/2013 03:35 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> On 07/31/2013 01:44 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>> To solve this dilemma, perform an interrupt consistency check
>>>> when adding a GPIO chip: if the chip is both gpio-controller and
>>>> interrupt-controller, walk all children of the device tree,
>>>> check if these in turn reference the interrupt-controller, and
>>>> if they do, loop over the interrupts used by that child and
>>>> perform gpio_reques() and gpio_direction_input() on these,
>>>> making them unreachable from the GPIO side.
>>>
>>> Ugh, that's pretty awful, and it doesn't actually solve the root
>>> problem of the GPIO and IRQ subsystems not cooperating. It's also a
>>> very DT-centric solution even though we're going to see the exact same
>>> issue on ACPI machines.
>>
>> The problem is that the patches for OMAP that I applied
>> and now have had to revert solves it in an even uglier way,
>> leading to breaking boards, as was noticed.
>>
>> The approach in this patch has the potential to actually
>> work without regressing a bunch of boards...
>>
>> Whether this is a problem in ACPI or not remains to be seen,
>> but I'm not sure about that. Device trees allows for a GPIO line
>> to be used as an interrupt source and GPIO line orthogonally,
>> and that is the root of this problem. Does ACPI have the same
>> problem, or does it impose natural restrictions on such use
>> cases?
>>
>
> I agree with Linus here. The problem is that GPIO controllers that can work as
> IRQ sources are treated in the kernel as if there where two separate controlers
> that are rather orthogonal: an irq_chip and a gpio_chip.
> But DT allows to use a GPIO line as an IRQ just by using an omap-gpio phandle as
> "interrupt-parent".
>
> So, there should be a place where both irq_chip and gpio_chip has to be related
> somehow to properly configure a GPIO (request it and setting it as input) when
> used as an IRQ by DT.
>
> My patch for OMAP used an irq_domain_ops .map function handler to configure the
> GPIO when a IRQ was mapped since that seemed to me as the best place to do it.
> This worked well in OMAP2+ platforms but unfortunately broke OMAP1 platforms
> since they are still using legacy domain mapping thus not call .map.
Just wondering- why .map not called for omap1? irq_create_mapping does seem to
call -> irq_domain_associate which calls map function. For omap case, GPIO
driver does call irq_create_mapping, just like omap2+ no?
Further, if for any reason the .map is not called. Can you not call gpio_request
yourself direct in omap_gpio_chip_init function?
Does it really matter if you call gpio_request from .map or from the chip_init
function?
Also on a different note.. this would call gpio_request for *every* gpio line,
but isn't that what your original patch that got reverted was doing in
omap_gpio_chip_init:
+ if (!bank->chip.of_node)
+ for (j = 0; j < bank->width; j++)
+ irq_create_mapping(bank->domain, j);
Just trying to understand your initial patch better.
Regards,
-Joel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-10 7:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1375101368-17645-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@linaro.org>
2013-07-30 4:30 ` [PATCH] RFC: interrupt consistency check for OF GPIO IRQs Grant Likely
2013-07-30 23:44 ` Linus Walleij
2013-07-31 8:35 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2013-08-02 9:57 ` Alexander Holler
2013-08-02 15:35 ` Alexander Holler
2013-08-03 7:23 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-10 7:00 ` Joel Fernandes [this message]
2013-09-10 13:17 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2013-09-10 15:00 ` Joel Fernandes
2013-09-10 15:48 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2013-09-10 16:25 ` Joel Fernandes
2013-09-11 7:05 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-11 7:16 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-11 7:30 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-11 7:36 ` Alexander Holler
2013-08-13 9:52 ` Lars Poeschel
2013-08-19 22:04 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-08-21 22:02 ` Linus Walleij
2013-09-06 15:32 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-09-11 15:30 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-11 16:14 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2013-09-11 17:42 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-12 8:55 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-12 10:11 ` Javier Martinez Canillas
2013-09-12 10:28 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-12 11:09 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-12 11:26 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-12 11:37 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-12 15:19 ` Stephen Warren
2013-09-12 15:57 ` Alexander Holler
2013-09-18 0:36 ` Grant Likely
2013-10-20 12:41 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-10-20 15:51 ` Tony Lindgren
2013-10-20 21:35 ` Stephen Warren
2013-10-21 23:26 ` Laurent Pinchart
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=522EC392.8070002@ti.com \
--to=joelf@ti.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).