lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] pinctrl: intel: Clear interrupt status in unmask callback
From
Date
at 05:47, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 12:45:39PM +0800, Kai-Heng Feng wrote:
>> Commit a939bb57cd47 ("pinctrl: intel: implement gpio_irq_enable") was
>> added because clearing interrupt status bit is required to avoid
>> unexpected behavior.
>>
>> Turns out the unmask callback also needs the fix, which can solve weird
>> IRQ triggering issues on I2C touchpad ELAN1200.
>
>> -static void intel_gpio_irq_enable(struct irq_data *d)
>> -{
>> - struct gpio_chip *gc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
>> - struct intel_pinctrl *pctrl = gpiochip_get_data(gc);
>> - const struct intel_community *community;
>> - const struct intel_padgroup *padgrp;
>> - int pin;
>> -
>> - pin = intel_gpio_to_pin(pctrl, irqd_to_hwirq(d), &community, &padgrp);
>> - if (pin >= 0) {
>> - unsigned int gpp, gpp_offset, is_offset;
>> - unsigned long flags;
>> - u32 value;
>> -
>> - gpp = padgrp->reg_num;
>> - gpp_offset = padgroup_offset(padgrp, pin);
>> - is_offset = community->is_offset + gpp * 4;
>> -
>> - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pctrl->lock, flags);
>> - /* Clear interrupt status first to avoid unexpected interrupt */
>> - writel(BIT(gpp_offset), community->regs + is_offset);
>> -
>> - value = readl(community->regs + community->ie_offset + gpp * 4);
>> - value |= BIT(gpp_offset);
>> - writel(value, community->regs + community->ie_offset + gpp * 4);
>> - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pctrl->lock, flags);
>> - }
>> -}
>> -
>> static void intel_gpio_irq_mask_unmask(struct irq_data *d, bool mask)
>> {
>> struct gpio_chip *gc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
>> @@ -963,6 +934,11 @@ static void intel_gpio_irq_mask_unmask(struct
>> irq_data *d, bool mask)
>> reg = community->regs + community->ie_offset + gpp * 4;
>>
>> raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pctrl->lock, flags);
>> +
>> + /* Clear interrupt status first to avoid unexpected interrupt */
>
>> + if (!mask)
>
> Can we do this unconditionally?

Yes I think so.

>
>> + writel(BIT(gpp_offset), community->regs +
>> community->is_offset + gpp * 4);
>
> I would rather prefer to follow the below pattern, like
>
> reg = ...;
> writel(..., reg);
>
> or, to decrease calculus under spin lock, something like
>
> reg = ->regs + gpp * 4;
>
> writel(..., reg + is_offset);
>
> readl(reg + ie_offset);
>
> etc.

Ok, will do.

>
>> +
>> value = readl(reg);
>> if (mask)
>> value &= ~BIT(gpp_offset);
>> @@ -1106,7 +1082,6 @@ static irqreturn_t intel_gpio_irq(int irq, void
>> *data)
>>
>> static struct irq_chip intel_gpio_irqchip = {
>> .name = "intel-gpio",
>
>> - .irq_enable = intel_gpio_irq_enable,
>
> Is it possible scenario when IRQ enable is called, but not masking
> callbacks?
> For _AEI or GPE?

I am unfamiliar with both of them, what are the callbacks to be used for
_AEI and GPE case?
Seems like both gpiolib and irqchip call irq_unmask() when irq_enable() is
absent.

Kai-Heng

>
>> .irq_ack = intel_gpio_irq_ack,
>> .irq_mask = intel_gpio_irq_mask,
>> .irq_unmask = intel_gpio_irq_unmask,
>
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-29 11:16    [W:0.112 / U:3.980 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site