Re: [PATCH 1/1] pinctrl: stmfx: add irq_request/release_resources callbacks

From: Amelie DELAUNAY <amelie.delaunay@st•com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro•org>
Cc: Alexandre TORGUE <alexandre.torgue@st•com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger•kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger•kernel.org>,
	"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger•kernel.org>,
	Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail•com>,
	"linux-stm32@st-md-mailman•stormreply.com"
	<linux-stm32@st-md-mailman•stormreply.com>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] pinctrl: stmfx: add irq_request/release_resources callbacks
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2019 16:53:09 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8eb2090a-e50e-2e4f-982b-073ad24e553c@st.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACRpkda6CyYCt-s-VkaK856Jt3TxQg+HVDz-5Ww9T9KNHHAjaQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Linus,

On 10/5/19 6:49 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 2:29 PM Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@st•com> 
> wrote:
> 
>> When an STMFX IO is used as interrupt through the interrupt-controller
>> binding, the STMFX driver should configure this IO as input. Default
>> value of STMFX IO direction is input, but if the IO is used as output
>> before the interrupt use, it will not work without these callbacks.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Amelie Delaunay <amelie.delaunay@st•com>
> 
> OK I see what you want to achieve.
> 
>> +static int stmfx_gpio_irq_request_resources(struct irq_data *data)
>> +{
>> +       struct gpio_chip *gpio_chip = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data);
>> +       struct stmfx_pinctrl *pctl = gpiochip_get_data(gpio_chip);
>> +       int ret;
>> +
>> +       ret = stmfx_gpio_direction_input(&pctl->gpio_chip, data->hwirq);
>> +       if (ret)
>> +               return ret;
>> +
>> +       ret = gpiochip_lock_as_irq(&pctl->gpio_chip, data->hwirq);
>> +       if (ret) {
>> +               dev_err(pctl->dev, "Unable to lock gpio %lu as IRQ: %d\n",
>> +                       data->hwirq, ret);
>> +               return ret;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       return 0;
>> +}
> 
> Just call gpiochip_reqres_irq() instead of calling the lock etc
> explicitly.
> 
>> +static void stmfx_gpio_irq_release_resources(struct irq_data *data)
>> +{
>> +       struct gpio_chip *gpio_chip = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data);
>> +       struct stmfx_pinctrl *pctl = gpiochip_get_data(gpio_chip);
>> +
>> +       gpiochip_unlock_as_irq(&pctl->gpio_chip, data->hwirq);
>> +}
> 
> Just call gpiochip_relres_irq()
> 
> But all this duplicated a lot of code from the core which is not so nice.
> 
>> @@ -678,6 +706,8 @@ static int stmfx_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>         pctl->irq_chip.irq_set_type = stmfx_pinctrl_irq_set_type;
>>         pctl->irq_chip.irq_bus_lock = stmfx_pinctrl_irq_bus_lock;
>>         pctl->irq_chip.irq_bus_sync_unlock = stmfx_pinctrl_irq_bus_sync_unlock;
>> +       pctl->irq_chip.irq_request_resources = stmfx_gpio_irq_request_resources;
>> +       pctl->irq_chip.irq_release_resources = stmfx_gpio_irq_release_resources;
> 
> What about just adding
> 
> pctl->irq_chip.irq_enable and do stmfx_gpio_direction_input()
> in that callback instead? gpiolib will helpfully wrap it.

Thanks for pointing that out to me.

I can't use .irq_enable because of I2C transfer to set gpio direction 
(scheduling while atomic BUG occurs in this case). Indeed, .irq_enable 
is called under raw_spin_lock_irqsave in __setup_irq() while 
irq_request_resources is called before.

I could apply gpio direction in stmfx_pinctrl_irq_bus_sync_unlock 
depending on pctl->irq_gpi_src[] (checking which one is set, to set 
input direction), but this will be applied each time a consumer requests 
a stmfx gpio irq.

IMHO, keeping .irq_request/release_resources callbacks and using 
gpiochip_reqres_irq()/gpiochip_relres_irq() seems to be the best compromise.

Regards,
Amelie

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel