Re: [RFC] Potential issue with GPIO/IRQ flags

["Andrew F. Davis" <afd@ti.com>]

On 09/17/2015 05:35 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 09/17/2015 11:21 AM, Andrew F. Davis wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/17/2015 12:20 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Andrew F. Davis <afd@ti.com> wrote:
>>>> On 09/16/2015 08:26 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Andrew F. Davis <afd@ti.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've noticed that in a few DT bindings GPIO_ACTIVE_* defines are
>>>>>> incorrectly used as interrupt flags. GPIO_ACTIVE_*'s are defined
>>>>>> in:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> include/dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and are used to describe GPIO pins. IRQ types are defined in:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> include/dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and are flags for IRQ pins.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is perfectly valid for the meaning of the field to be defined by
>>>>> the interrupt controller, and gpio interrupts could do something
>>>>> different. We've tried to standardize this though.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure, but in this case these are not what the interrupt controller
>>>> is expecting.
>>>
>>> Understood. I was talking generally, not this specific case.
>>>
>>>>>> These seem to have been mixed up in a few places, take for example:
>>>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra124-jetson-tk1.dts. On line 1393 we see the
>>>>>> correct usage, but just before on line 1384 we see the issue.
>>>>>> GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH is defined as 0, the same as IRQ_TYPE_NONE. If
>>>>>> this IRQ was not hard-coded with the correct edge in the driver
>>>>>> this would not work. What the author probably wanted was
>>>>>> IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now lets look at commit c21e678b256b, in this the IRQ flags did not
>>>>>> matter as the correct flag was hard-coded (IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW), this
>>>>>> patch moves this to the DT, but changed the flag to GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW
>>>>>> instead of the desired IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW. GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW is defined
>>>>>> as 1, or IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING in IRQ flags, which is not the
>>>>>> equivalent to IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW the author was probably looking for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A quick grep (git grep "interrupt.*GPIO_ACTIVE_") shows several more
>>>>>> instances of this. I found this by using one of these files as an
>>>>>> example and giving myself a lot of problems, so I would like to fix
>>>>>> this before it spreads anymore.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a couple of ideas of how to go at this, first would be to
>>>>>> just replace the incorrect flags with what was intended, but for
>>>>>> some of these I don't know what was intended and do not have the
>>>>>> board to test.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My other solution would be to just change all instances of the GPIO
>>>>>> flags to their value corresponding IRQ flags:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - interrupts = <11 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
>>>>>> + interrupts = <11 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this would not make any functional change as the defines would
>>>>>> still evaluate to the same value, but would make it obvious where
>>>>>> a problem may be and that they should probably be checked and
>>>>>> corrected, maybe we could even put a comment after:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - interrupts = <11 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
>>>>>> + interrupts = <11 IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING>; // FIXME: Check IRQ type
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, what do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This seems fine. It is no less wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what you mean here.
>>>
>>> In this example, the correct value is probably IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW or
>>> IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING if the original text was correct in its
>>> intentions (but broken in implementation). Since the change you
>>> propose doesn't change the actual dtb at all, if it was wrong before
>>> it will still be wrong.
>>>
>>
>> I see, that's kinda what I want, maybe for this example the intentions
>> are obvious but my concern is with a couple others that I don't know
>> what the trigger was meant to be and don't have a board to test the
>> changes with, so I would never be sure if I causing any regressions
>> with the fixes. Most of the affected boards are Tegra based (that's
>> why I cc'd linux-tegra), I was hoping they would be interested in
>> testing and finding the right values.
>
> Presumably/hopefully if you send specific patches, the various
> maintainers/owners of those DT files will validate/ack then; you don't
> need to be able to test all of the changes yourself.
>

Well that was what I was going to do, but I found in some cases I didn't
know what the right value should be. Submitting patches would be easier,
but instead I had to write that block of text to try to recruit some help
from the original authors and people with the boards to find these correct
values.

--
Andrew