Re: [PATCH v3] regmap: regmap-irq/gpio-max77620: add level-irq support

Matti Vaittinen
2019-01-04T08:02:32Z

On Thu, Jan 03, 2019 at 05:20:08PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 09:42:51AM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 31, 2018 at 07:11:27PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 10:05:33AM +0200, Matti Vaittinen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Last night - just when I was about to get some sleep - it stroke me. I
> > > > think the correct thing to do would be leaving the irq_set_type to NULL
> > > > for those IRQ chips which do not support type setting. If we do that,
> > > > then the irq core will take care of situations where user requests type
> > > > setting but the chip does not support it. Which means the regmap-irq
> > > > would be no different from any other irq chip where type setting is not
> > > > supported.
> > >
> > > Yes, this is the best fix - let the framework handle things properly.
> > > We'll need a second set of operations and to select which to use based
> > > on having type information but that's fine.
> > >
> > > > So at the cost of removing "const" from regmap_irq_chip we could do:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > Mark, Geert, what do you think? (And maybe same for the .irq_set_wake -
> > > > but I did omit this as I have never looked at the wake functionality
> > > > before).
> > >
> > > We need a separate struct as otherwise if there's multiple devices with
> > > regmap irq_chip implementations then they'll collide with each other
> >
> > Right. I must admit I didn't notice this! I was about to make a nasty
> > error there...
> >
>
> Looking at the code I think it just copies the struct anyway,
> basically using it as a template so I think this should be fine.

Rigth. It seems to be:

d->irq_chip = regmap_irq_chip;
not:
d->irq_chip = &regmap_irq_chip;

and

struct regmap_irq_chip_data {
struct mutex lock;
struct irq_chip irq_chip;

struct regmap *map;
...
};

not
struct regmap_irq_chip_data {
struct mutex lock;
struct irq_chip *irq_chip;

struct regmap *map;
...
};

> > > you're probably right that we need to do the same thing for the wake
> > > configuration. I'll still look at applying your patch as a temporary
> > > fix though.

I won't touch the wake thing (at least not yet) as I am not familiar
with it. Is it Ok to change it with another patch later?

> >
> > Thanks Mark. I try to cook a patch with copying of struct irq_chip still
> > at this week but I wont rush it (I have some other topics under work) as
> > the regression should be fixed by the other patch.
> >
>
> Just to check that is this patch here:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20181227084443.GA23991@localhost.localdomain/
>
> Just want to check what will be applied so I know it will fix the
> regression I am seeing as well.

Yep. That's the patch Mark did apply.

>
> Thanks,
> Charles