Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:54:26 +0300 | From | Grygorii Strashko <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |