Re: [PATCH 2/2] gpio: sch: Add interrupt support

[Jan Kiszka]

On 26.04.19 16:41, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 3:06 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:39:35PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > > On 24.04.19 12:33, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 12:19:02PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >
> > > > > And even if that were possible, we would be back to the square of existing
> > > > > devices without those definitions. If this were a recent chipset, I would
> > > > > say, "go, fix future firmware versions". But this one is legacy.
> > > >
> > > > Is it fixing some real issue with these legacy platforms? I mean without
> > > > the patch some GPE event is not handled properly? It was not clear to me
> > > > from the commit message.
> > >
> > > Without that patch, you are forced to poll for event changes in your
> > > application, timer-driven. There are application that cannot process these
> > > GPIOs because they lack such logic (mraa with node-red-node-intel-gpio is a
> > > public example).
> >
> > Just a side note: MRAA is a hack itself. It abuses almost all interfaces Linux
> > kernel provides.
>
> I think it's pretty clean for GPIOs these days. My colleague Manivannan
> was part of cleaning it up a while back and since then it is doing
> what userspace should be doing if userspace absolutely cannot
> abstain from using GPIOs directly (i.e. uses the character device).
> https://github.com/intel-iot-devkit/mraa/blob/master/src/gpio/gpio_chardev.c
>
> I don't know about other resources than GPIOs though.

That's valuable progress!

OTOH, there still seem to be the broken pattern to address pins via hard-coded 
GPIO numbers. This broke our neck, e.g., when trying to replace the hacky BSP 
kernel with upstream. I started to create better infrastructure but never fished 
that.

Thanks,
Jan

--
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA IOT SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux