Re: [PATCH 3/4] gpio: sifive: Add GPIO driver for SiFive SoCs

[Linus Walleij]

On Tue, Nov 19, 2019 at 5:42 PM Bartosz Golaszewski
<bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> wt., 19 lis 2019 o 16:03 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> napisaÅ(a):
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 11:15 AM Bartosz Golaszewski
> > <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > > pon., 18 lis 2019 o 11:03 Yash Shah <yash.shah@xxxxxxxxxx> napisaÅ(a):
> > Is it really so? The bgpio_lock does protect the registers used
> > by regmap-mmio but unless the interrupt code is also using the
> > same registers it is fine to have a different lock for those.
> >
> > Is the interrupt code really poking into the very same registers
> > as passed to bgpio_init()?
> >
> > Of course it could be seen as a bit dirty to poke around in the
> > same memory space with regmap and the bgpio_* accessors
> > but in practice it's no problem if they never touch the same
> > things.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Linus Walleij
>
> I'm wondering if it won't cause any inconsistencies when for example
> interrupts are being triggered on input lines while we're also reading
> their values? Seems to me it's just more clear to use a single lock
> for a register range. Most drivers using gpio-mmio do just that in
> their irq-related routines.

OK good point. Just one lock for the whole thing is likely
more maintainable even if it works with two different locks.

> Anyway: even without using bgpio_lock this code is inconsistent: if
> we're using regmap for interrupt registers, we should either decide to
> rely on locking provided by regmap or disable it and use a locally
> defined lock.

OK makes sense, let's say we use the bgpio_lock everywhere
for this.

Yash: are you OK with this? (Haven't read the new patch set
yet, maybe it is already fixed...)

> Also: if we're using regmap, then let's use it
> everywhere, not only when it's convenient for updating registers.

I think what you are saying is that we should extend gpio-mmio.c
with some optional regmap API (or create a separate MMIO library
for regmap consumers) which makes sense, but it feels a bit
heavy task to toss at contributors.

We could add it to the TODO file, where I already have some
item like this for port-mapped I/O.

Yours,
Linus Walleij