Re: [PATCH] RFC: interrupt consistency check for OF GPIO IRQs

[Joel Fernandes]

On 09/10/2013 08:17 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> On 09/10/2013 09:00 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>> 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@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> 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?
>>
> 
> That is what I understood too when writing the patch but I remember someone
> mentioning legacy domain mapping not calling the .map function handler as a
> possible cause for the OMAP1 regression and since Linus decided to revert the
> patches in favor of a more general solution I didn't care to check if that was
> true or not. Now looking at irq_create_mapping() I see that my assumption was
> correct so I don't know what was the bug that caused the OMAP1 regression.

Only stuff you deleted from the chip_init function was:

-       for (j = 0; j < bank->width; j++) {
-               int irq = irq_create_mapping(bank->domain, j);
-               irq_set_lockdep_class(irq, &gpio_lock_class);
-               irq_set_chip_data(irq, bank);
-               if (bank->is_mpuio) {
-                       omap_mpuio_alloc_gc(bank, irq, bank->width);
-               } else {
-                       irq_set_chip_and_handler(irq, &gpio_irq_chip,
-                                                handle_simple_irq);
-                       set_irq_flags(irq, IRQF_VALID);
-               }

and you moved all of it to the .map function in your patch. Not sure what could
be breaking OMAP1 cases.
You could potentially add that back with some #ifdef for OMAP1?

Either way, map should be called looks like. If its not called, then the above
block can be explicity called for OMAP1 case in omap_chip_gpio_init.

What was strange is one person reported that mappings were not created for
OMAP1. But I am wondering what you changed could result in not creating that
mapping. Really nothing..

I think your initial patch is much better than fixing up DT but then I may be
missing other problems with your patch that Linus's patch addresses.

>> Further, if for any reason the .map is not called. Can you not call gpio_request
>> yourself direct in omap_gpio_chip_init function?
>>
> 
> No, since you can't request a GPIO for all GPIO pins in the bank. Users have to
> do it explicitly (or implicitly in the case of GPIO mapped as IRQ in DT).

Ah since you split the patch up into 2, I missed the gpio_request stuff. Ok,
that makes sense.

>> Does it really matter if you call gpio_request from .map or from the chip_init
>> function?
>>
> 
> Yes it does, because in DT the core calls irq_create_of_mapping() ->
> irq_create_mapping() -> .map(). That way only are requested the GPIO pins that
> are mapped as IRQ and not all of them.

>> 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);
>>
> 
> No it won't. This is only needed for the legacy (non-DT) boot since no one calls
> irq_create_mapping() so it has to be called explicitly.
> 
> And in that case .map will be called but gpio_request() won't since the call is
> made only when bank->chip.of_node is not NULL.

Ok, thanks for the explanation. That makes sense to me.

Regards,

-Joel

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/