lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jul]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/4] mfd: twl6030-irq: migrate to IRQ threaded handler
On 07/24/2013 01:49 PM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jul 2013, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>
>> From: Naga Venkata Srikanth V <vnv.srikanth@samsung.com>
>>
>> 1) Removed request_irq() and replaced it with request_threaded_irq().
>>
>> 2) Removed generic_handle_irq() and replaced it with
>> handle_nested_irq().
>> Handling of these interrupts is nested, as we are handling an
>> interrupt (for e.g rtc, mmc1) when we are still servicing TWL irq.
>>
>> 3) Removed I2C read-retry logic for the case when twl_i2c_read() is
>> failed inside IRQ handler - there is no sense to do that, so just report
>> an error and return.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Naga Venkata Srikanth V <vnv.srikanth@samsung.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Oleg_Kosheliev <oleg.kosheliev@ti.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/mfd/twl6030-irq.c | 146 +++++++++++++++------------------------------
>> 1 file changed, 49 insertions(+), 97 deletions(-)
>
> Besides the points I mention below I like the way this patch is
> going.
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/twl6030-irq.c b/drivers/mfd/twl6030-irq.c
>> index 277a8db..b6030d9 100644
>> --- a/drivers/mfd/twl6030-irq.c
>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/twl6030-irq.c
>> @@ -90,7 +90,6 @@ static unsigned twl6030_irq_base;
>> static int twl_irq;
>> static bool twl_irq_wake_enabled;
>>
>> -static struct completion irq_event;
>> static atomic_t twl6030_wakeirqs = ATOMIC_INIT(0);
>>
>> static int twl6030_irq_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *notifier,
>> @@ -131,95 +130,57 @@ static struct notifier_block twl6030_irq_pm_notifier_block = {
>> };
>>
>> /*
>> - * This thread processes interrupts reported by the Primary Interrupt Handler.
>> - */
>> -static int twl6030_irq_thread(void *data)
>> +* Threaded irq handler for the twl6030 interrupt.
>> +* We query the interrupt controller in the twl6030 to determine
>> +* which module is generating the interrupt request and call
>> +* handle_nested_irq for that module.
>> +*/
>> +static irqreturn_t twl6030_irq_thread(int irq, void *data)
>> {
>> - long irq = (long)data;
>> - static unsigned i2c_errors;
>> - static const unsigned max_i2c_errors = 100;
>> - int ret;
>> -
>> - while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
>> - int i;
>> - union {
>> + int i, ret;
>> + union {
>> u8 bytes[4];
>> u32 int_sts;
>> - } sts;
>> -
>> - /* Wait for IRQ, then read PIH irq status (also blocking) */
>> - wait_for_completion_interruptible(&irq_event);
>> -
>> - /* read INT_STS_A, B and C in one shot using a burst read */
>> - ret = twl_i2c_read(TWL_MODULE_PIH, sts.bytes,
>> - REG_INT_STS_A, 3);
>> - if (ret) {
>> - pr_warning("twl6030: I2C error %d reading PIH ISR\n",
>> - ret);
>> - if (++i2c_errors >= max_i2c_errors) {
>> - printk(KERN_ERR "Maximum I2C error count"
>> - " exceeded. Terminating %s.\n",
>> - __func__);
>> - break;
>> - }
>> - complete(&irq_event);
>> - continue;
>> - }
>> -
>> + } sts;
>>
>> + /* read INT_STS_A, B and C in one shot using a burst read */
>> + ret = twl_i2c_read(TWL_MODULE_PIH, sts.bytes, REG_INT_STS_A, 3);

sts.int_sts - is filled here

>> + if (ret) {
>> + pr_warn("%s: I2C error %d reading PIH ISR\n", __func__, ret);
>
> Does the user really care which function we're returning from.
>
> Would it be better if you replace '__func__' with the device name?

This module hasn't been converted to the device yet:(
(I mean "interrupt-controller").
But I'm thinking about it as the next step :) and then It will be
absolutely reasonable change to replace pr_*() with dev_*() and remove
__func__.

Now, the pointer on "dev" (in our case "twl-core" device) isn't passed
in IRQ handler, so It can't be used here.

Of course it can be done, but would it make code better?
My opinion - no.

>
>> + return IRQ_HANDLED;
>> + }
>>
>> - sts.bytes[3] = 0; /* Only 24 bits are valid*/
>> + sts.bytes[3] = 0; /* Only 24 bits are valid*/
>>
>> - /*
>> - * Since VBUS status bit is not reliable for VBUS disconnect
>> - * use CHARGER VBUS detection status bit instead.
>> - */
>> - if (sts.bytes[2] & 0x10)
>> - sts.bytes[2] |= 0x08;
>> + /*
>> + * Since VBUS status bit is not reliable for VBUS disconnect
>> + * use CHARGER VBUS detection status bit instead.
>> + */
>> + if (sts.bytes[2] & 0x10)
>> + sts.bytes[2] |= 0x08;
>>
>> - for (i = 0; sts.int_sts; sts.int_sts >>= 1, i++) {
>> - local_irq_disable();
>> - if (sts.int_sts & 0x1) {
>> - int module_irq = twl6030_irq_base +
>> + for (i = 0; sts.int_sts; sts.int_sts >>= 1, i++)
>> + if (sts.int_sts & 0x1) {
>
> I'm a little confused by this. Where does sts.int_sts come from?

See my comment above, pls

>
>> + int module_irq = twl6030_irq_base +
>> twl6030_interrupt_mapping[i];
>> - generic_handle_irq(module_irq);
>> -
>> - }
>> - local_irq_enable();
>> + handle_nested_irq(module_irq);
>> + pr_debug("%s: PIH ISR %u, virq%u\n",
>> + __func__, i, module_irq);
>> }
>>
>> - /*
>> - * NOTE:
>> - * Simulation confirms that documentation is wrong w.r.t the
>> - * interrupt status clear operation. A single *byte* write to
>> - * any one of STS_A to STS_C register results in all three
>> - * STS registers being reset. Since it does not matter which
>> - * value is written, all three registers are cleared on a
>> - * single byte write, so we just use 0x0 to clear.
>> - */
>> - ret = twl_i2c_write_u8(TWL_MODULE_PIH, 0x00, REG_INT_STS_A);
>> - if (ret)
>> - pr_warning("twl6030: I2C error in clearing PIH ISR\n");
>> -
>> - enable_irq(irq);
>> - }
>> -
>> - return 0;
>> -}
>> + /*
>> + * NOTE:
>> + * Simulation confirms that documentation is wrong w.r.t the
>> + * interrupt status clear operation. A single *byte* write to
>> + * any one of STS_A to STS_C register results in all three
>> + * STS registers being reset. Since it does not matter which
>> + * value is written, all three registers are cleared on a
>> + * single byte write, so we just use 0x0 to clear.
>> + */
>> + ret = twl_i2c_write_u8(TWL_MODULE_PIH, 0x00, REG_INT_STS_A);
>> + if (ret)
>> + pr_warn("twl6030: I2C error in clearing PIH ISR\n");
>>
>> -/*
>> - * handle_twl6030_int() is the desc->handle method for the twl6030 interrupt.
>> - * This is a chained interrupt, so there is no desc->action method for it.
>> - * Now we need to query the interrupt controller in the twl6030 to determine
>> - * which module is generating the interrupt request. However, we can't do i2c
>> - * transactions in interrupt context, so we must defer that work to a kernel
>> - * thread. All we do here is acknowledge and mask the interrupt and wakeup
>> - * the kernel thread.
>> - */
>> -static irqreturn_t handle_twl6030_pih(int irq, void *devid)
>> -{
>> - disable_irq_nosync(irq);
>> - complete(devid);
>> return IRQ_HANDLED;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -351,7 +312,6 @@ int twl6030_init_irq(struct device *dev, int irq_num)
>> {
>> struct device_node *node = dev->of_node;
>> int nr_irqs, irq_base, irq_end;
>> - struct task_struct *task;
>> static struct irq_chip twl6030_irq_chip;
>> int status = 0;
>> int i;
>> @@ -396,36 +356,25 @@ int twl6030_init_irq(struct device *dev, int irq_num)
>> irq_set_chip_and_handler(i, &twl6030_irq_chip,
>> handle_simple_irq);
>> irq_set_chip_data(i, (void *)irq_num);
>> + irq_set_nested_thread(i, true);
>> activate_irq(i);
>> }
>>
>> - dev_info(dev, "PIH (irq %d) chaining IRQs %d..%d\n",
>> - irq_num, irq_base, irq_end);
>> + dev_info(dev, "PIH (irq %d) nested IRQs %d..%d\n",
>> + irq_num, irq_base, irq_end);
>>
>> /* install an irq handler to demultiplex the TWL6030 interrupt */
>> - init_completion(&irq_event);
>> -
>> - status = request_irq(irq_num, handle_twl6030_pih, 0, "TWL6030-PIH",
>> - &irq_event);
>> + status = request_threaded_irq(irq_num, NULL, twl6030_irq_thread,
>> + IRQF_ONESHOT, "TWL6030-PIH", NULL);
>> if (status < 0) {
>> dev_err(dev, "could not claim irq %d: %d\n", irq_num, status);
>> goto fail_irq;
>> }
>>
>> - task = kthread_run(twl6030_irq_thread, (void *)irq_num, "twl6030-irq");
>> - if (IS_ERR(task)) {
>> - dev_err(dev, "could not create irq %d thread!\n", irq_num);
>> - status = PTR_ERR(task);
>> - goto fail_kthread;
>> - }
>> -
>> twl_irq = irq_num;
>> register_pm_notifier(&twl6030_irq_pm_notifier_block);
>> return irq_base;
>>
>> -fail_kthread:
>> - free_irq(irq_num, &irq_event);
>> -
>> fail_irq:
>> for (i = irq_base; i < irq_end; i++)
>> irq_set_chip_and_handler(i, NULL, NULL);
>> @@ -437,10 +386,13 @@ int twl6030_exit_irq(void)
>> {
>> unregister_pm_notifier(&twl6030_irq_pm_notifier_block);
>>
>> - if (twl6030_irq_base) {
>> + if (!twl6030_irq_base) {
>> pr_err("twl6030: can't yet clean up IRQs?\n");
>> return -ENOSYS;
>> }
>> +
>> + free_irq(twl_irq, NULL);
>> +
>
> If request_threaded_irq() fails, isn't there a chance that
> twl6030_irq_base will be allocated, but twl_irq will still be
> undefined?

Yes. A mess is here (historically:), thanks. Will use twl_irq instead of
twl6030_irq_base (I did it, actually, in patch [3]:).

>
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>

Thanks for review.

Regards,
- grygorii


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-07-24 14:21    [W:0.127 / U:3.580 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site