Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1390888 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v2 6/9] pinctrl: Add IRQ support to STM32 gpios

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v2 6/9] pinctrl: Add IRQ support to STM32 gpios Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> - 2016-04-29 11:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2 6/9] pinctrl: Add IRQ support to STM32 gpios Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com> - 2016-04-29 13:20 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2 6/9] pinctrl: Add IRQ support to STM32 gpios Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> - 2016-04-30 13:40 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v2 6/9] pinctrl: Add IRQ support to STM32 gpios Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com> - 2016-05-02 10:40 +0200

#1390888 — Re: [PATCH v2 6/9] pinctrl: Add IRQ support to STM32 gpios

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Maxime Coquelin
<mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2016-04-08 11:43 GMT+02:00 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>:
>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Maxime Coquelin
>> <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +static int stm32_gpio_to_irq(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset)
>>> +{
>>> +       struct stm32_pinctrl *pctl = dev_get_drvdata(chip->parent);
>>> +       struct stm32_gpio_bank *bank = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
>>> +       unsigned int irq;
>>> +
>>> +       regmap_field_write(pctl->irqmux[offset], bank->range.id);
>>
>> No. You must implement the irqchip and GPIO controllers to
>> be orthogonal, doing things like this creates a semantic that
>> assumes .to_irq() is always called before using the IRQ and
>> that is not guaranteed at all. A consumer may very well
>> use an interrupt right off the irqchip without this being called
>> first. All this function should do is translate a number. No
>> other semantics.
>>
>> This needs to be done from the irqchip (sorry).
>
> Actually, the register written here is not part of the irqchip.
> It is a system config register that is only used when using a GPIO as
> external interrupt.
> Its aim is to mux the GPIO bank on a line.

Then it should be done in .request() for the GPIO, not in
.to_irq().

It should *also* be done in the set-up path for the irqchip
side, if that line is used without any interaction with the
gpio side of things.

> For example on line 1, it can be muxed to select either gpioa1,
> gpiob1, gpioc1, ...
> How could I do it in the irqchip that has no gpio knowledge?

I don't understand this.

We are discussing an irqchip that is tightly coupled with
a gpiochip. Usually d->hwirq is the same as the GPIO offset
but that varies.

The point is that each IRQ that ever get used
has a 1-to-1 relationship to a certain GPIO line, and if that
relationship cannot be resolved from the irqchip side,
something is wrong. The irqchip needs to enable the
GPIO line it is backing to recieve interrupts without any
requirements that .to_irq() have been called first.

If to_irq() does something else than translate to an IRQ
something is wrong.

Yours,
Linus Walleij

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1391017

2016-04-29 10:53 GMT+02:00 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Maxime Coquelin
> <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2016-04-08 11:43 GMT+02:00 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>:
>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Maxime Coquelin
>>> <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +static int stm32_gpio_to_irq(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       struct stm32_pinctrl *pctl = dev_get_drvdata(chip->parent);
>>>> +       struct stm32_gpio_bank *bank = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
>>>> +       unsigned int irq;
>>>> +
>>>> +       regmap_field_write(pctl->irqmux[offset], bank->range.id);
>>>
>>> No. You must implement the irqchip and GPIO controllers to
>>> be orthogonal, doing things like this creates a semantic that
>>> assumes .to_irq() is always called before using the IRQ and
>>> that is not guaranteed at all. A consumer may very well
>>> use an interrupt right off the irqchip without this being called
>>> first. All this function should do is translate a number. No
>>> other semantics.
>>>
>>> This needs to be done from the irqchip (sorry).
>>
>> Actually, the register written here is not part of the irqchip.
>> It is a system config register that is only used when using a GPIO as
>> external interrupt.
>> Its aim is to mux the GPIO bank on a line.
>
> Then it should be done in .request() for the GPIO, not in
> .to_irq().
Problem is that at request time, we don't know whether the GPIO is to
be used as an interrupt or not.

I think I may have not been clear enough in the HW architecture description.
Indeed, I used the term "mux", but should instead use the term "selector".

The idea is that between the GPIO controllers and the EXTI controller,
there is one selector for each line number, to select the controller used as
interrupt source.

For example, there is a selector on line 0 to select between gpioa0, gpiob0,
gpioc0,.., gpiok0, which one is connected to exti0.

It means there is a HW restriction that makes impossible to use both GPIOA0
or GPIOB0 as interrupts at the same time.

It looks like this: http://pastebin.com/raw/cs2WiNKZ
You can directly check section 12.2.5 of the stm32f429 reference manual:
http://www2.st.com/resource/en/reference_manual/dm00031020.pdf

For example, we can imagine a board where gpioa0 is used SD's card detect,
and gpiob0 used to control a led.

If we set the mux at request time, gpiob0 request may overwrite the mux
configuration set by gpioa0, whereas it is not used as interrupt.

That is the reason why I did it in .to_irq().

>
> It should *also* be done in the set-up path for the irqchip
> side, if that line is used without any interaction with the
> gpio side of things.
Actually, a line is either used by a GPIO, (exclusive) or another purpose.
In the case of a GPIO line, I think we should always go through the gpio.

>
>> For example on line 1, it can be muxed to select either gpioa1,
>> gpiob1, gpioc1, ...
>> How could I do it in the irqchip that has no gpio knowledge?
>
> I don't understand this.
>
> We are discussing an irqchip that is tightly coupled with
> a gpiochip. Usually d->hwirq is the same as the GPIO offset
> but that varies.
>
> The point is that each IRQ that ever get used
> has a 1-to-1 relationship to a certain GPIO line, and if that
> relationship cannot be resolved from the irqchip side,
> something is wrong. The irqchip needs to enable the
> GPIO line it is backing to recieve interrupts without any
> requirements that .to_irq() have been called first.

Actually, this is not a 1:1 relationship, as for example, exti0 can be connected
to either gpioa0, or gpiob0,..., or gpiok0.

So for the exti entries that are connected to gpios, I don't see how
we can reference it
from the exti controller,
>
> If to_irq() does something else than translate to an IRQ
> something is wrong.

Ok, so maybe we need an intermediate layer between gpio and exti to manage the
selectors sysconf?
I wiil have a look in that direction, but I think it could be over-engineered.

Thanks!
Maxime

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1391597

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Maxime Coquelin
<mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2016-04-29 10:53 GMT+02:00 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>:
>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Maxime Coquelin
>> <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 2016-04-08 11:43 GMT+02:00 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>:
>>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Maxime Coquelin
>>>> <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +static int stm32_gpio_to_irq(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +       struct stm32_pinctrl *pctl = dev_get_drvdata(chip->parent);
>>>>> +       struct stm32_gpio_bank *bank = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
>>>>> +       unsigned int irq;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +       regmap_field_write(pctl->irqmux[offset], bank->range.id);
>>>>
>>>> No. You must implement the irqchip and GPIO controllers to
>>>> be orthogonal, doing things like this creates a semantic that
>>>> assumes .to_irq() is always called before using the IRQ and
>>>> that is not guaranteed at all. A consumer may very well
>>>> use an interrupt right off the irqchip without this being called
>>>> first. All this function should do is translate a number. No
>>>> other semantics.
>>>>
>>>> This needs to be done from the irqchip (sorry).
>>>
>>> Actually, the register written here is not part of the irqchip.
>>> It is a system config register that is only used when using a GPIO as
>>> external interrupt.
>>> Its aim is to mux the GPIO bank on a line.
>>
>> Then it should be done in .request() for the GPIO, not in
>> .to_irq().
>
> Problem is that at request time, we don't know whether the GPIO is to
> be used as an interrupt or not.

Well the fact that .to_irq() is called does not mean that you know
it will be used as an interrupt either. Sorry. It is just a translation
function, not an allocation function.

> I think I may have not been clear enough in the HW architecture description.
> Indeed, I used the term "mux", but should instead use the term "selector".
>
> The idea is that between the GPIO controllers and the EXTI controller,
> there is one selector for each line number, to select the controller used as
> interrupt source.
>
> For example, there is a selector on line 0 to select between gpioa0, gpiob0,
> gpioc0,.., gpiok0, which one is connected to exti0.
>
> It means there is a HW restriction that makes impossible to use both GPIOA0
> or GPIOB0 as interrupts at the same time.
>
> It looks like this: http://pastebin.com/raw/cs2WiNKZ
> You can directly check section 12.2.5 of the stm32f429 reference manual:
> http://www2.st.com/resource/en/reference_manual/dm00031020.pdf

Nice ASCII art, include that into the commit message :)

> For example, we can imagine a board where gpioa0 is used SD's card detect,
> and gpiob0 used to control a led.
>
> If we set the mux at request time, gpiob0 request may overwrite the mux
> configuration set by gpioa0, whereas it is not used as interrupt.
>
> That is the reason why I did it in .to_irq().

Well now I am even *more* convinced that this should not happen in
.to_irq(). .to_irq() should not do *anything*.

This needs to happen as part of the irqchip setting up the actual
interrupt.

And it seems the problem is that this driver does *not* define its
own irqchip, but it *should*.

What you want to do is implement an hierarchical irqdomain in your
irqchip, which is what other drivers of this type are doing, see:
drivers/gpio/gpio-xgene-sb.c
irq_domain_create_hierarchy() is your friend.

>> It should *also* be done in the set-up path for the irqchip
>> side, if that line is used without any interaction with the
>> gpio side of things.
>
> Actually, a line is either used by a GPIO, (exclusive) or another purpose.
> In the case of a GPIO line, I think we should always go through the gpio.

This is a textbook example of a hierarchichal irq domain I think.

>> The point is that each IRQ that ever get used
>> has a 1-to-1 relationship to a certain GPIO line, and if that
>> relationship cannot be resolved from the irqchip side,
>> something is wrong. The irqchip needs to enable the
>> GPIO line it is backing to recieve interrupts without any
>> requirements that .to_irq() have been called first.
>
> Actually, this is not a 1:1 relationship, as for example, exti0 can be connected
> to either gpioa0, or gpiob0,..., or gpiok0.

That is what hierarchical irqdomain is for.

You should expose an irqchip from the gpio driver, that give you
unique irq translations for *all* GPIO lines.

Then, at runtime, if the hierarchical irqdomain cannot map
(i.e. mux) the interrupt onto one of the available lines,
you will get an error.

Yours,
Linus Walleij

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1392065

2016-04-30 13:32 GMT+02:00 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Maxime Coquelin
> <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It looks like this: http://pastebin.com/raw/cs2WiNKZ
>> You can directly check section 12.2.5 of the stm32f429 reference manual:
>> http://www2.st.com/resource/en/reference_manual/dm00031020.pdf
>
> Nice ASCII art, include that into the commit message :)

I will! :)

>
>> For example, we can imagine a board where gpioa0 is used SD's card detect,
>> and gpiob0 used to control a led.
>>
>> If we set the mux at request time, gpiob0 request may overwrite the mux
>> configuration set by gpioa0, whereas it is not used as interrupt.
>>
>> That is the reason why I did it in .to_irq().
>
> Well now I am even *more* convinced that this should not happen in
> .to_irq(). .to_irq() should not do *anything*.
>
> This needs to happen as part of the irqchip setting up the actual
> interrupt.
>
> And it seems the problem is that this driver does *not* define its
> own irqchip, but it *should*.
>
> What you want to do is implement an hierarchical irqdomain in your
> irqchip, which is what other drivers of this type are doing, see:
> drivers/gpio/gpio-xgene-sb.c
> irq_domain_create_hierarchy() is your friend.
>
>>> It should *also* be done in the set-up path for the irqchip
>>> side, if that line is used without any interaction with the
>>> gpio side of things.
>>
>> Actually, a line is either used by a GPIO, (exclusive) or another purpose.
>> In the case of a GPIO line, I think we should always go through the gpio.
>
> This is a textbook example of a hierarchichal irq domain I think.
>
>>> The point is that each IRQ that ever get used
>>> has a 1-to-1 relationship to a certain GPIO line, and if that
>>> relationship cannot be resolved from the irqchip side,
>>> something is wrong. The irqchip needs to enable the
>>> GPIO line it is backing to recieve interrupts without any
>>> requirements that .to_irq() have been called first.
>>
>> Actually, this is not a 1:1 relationship, as for example, exti0 can be connected
>> to either gpioa0, or gpiob0,..., or gpiok0.
>
> That is what hierarchical irqdomain is for.
>
> You should expose an irqchip from the gpio driver, that give you
> unique irq translations for *all* GPIO lines.
>
> Then, at runtime, if the hierarchical irqdomain cannot map
> (i.e. mux) the interrupt onto one of the available lines,
> you will get an error.

Thanks a lot for this valuable feedback.
I will have a look at hierachical irq domains, and hope to come back this week
with an implementation.

Regards,
Maxime

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web