Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B (devm_request_threaded_irq)

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B (devm_request_threaded_irq)

[Mathieu Rondonneau]

On 15-10-31 08:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> Hi,
>
> irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not get
> triggered when interrupt fires.
>
> The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
> Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
> the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so the
> interrupt is happening.
>
> Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by the
> ipipe layer?
>
> Thanks,
> -Mathieu

I think I might have answered my own question.
Looks like I need to use ipipe_request_irq() instead.

Regards,
-Mathieu

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B (devm_request_threaded_irq)

[Mathieu Rondonneau]

On 15-11-01 06:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> On 15-10-31 08:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not get
>> triggered when interrupt fires.
>>
>> The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
>> Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
>> the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so the
>> interrupt is happening.
>>
>> Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by the
>> ipipe layer?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Mathieu
>
> I think I might have answered my own question.
> Looks like I need to use ipipe_request_irq() instead.
>
> Regards,
> -Mathieu
mmmm it is not true, it seems we still need a 
ipipe_request_threaded_irq() to call the ackfn, put the handler in the 
queue and wake up the thread once handler is executed. Or user will have 
to move this functionality into their driver's IRQ handler.

It strangely looks like ipipe_request_irq's idea is similar to what 
request_threaded_irq is already doing (delaying IRQ process later).

-Mathieu

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B (devm_request_threaded_irq)

[Mathieu Rondonneau]

On 15-11-01 07:21 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> On 15-11-01 06:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>> On 15-10-31 08:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not get
>>> triggered when interrupt fires.
>>>
>>> The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
>>> Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
>>> the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so the
>>> interrupt is happening.
>>>
>>> Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by the
>>> ipipe layer?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Mathieu
>>
>> I think I might have answered my own question.
>> Looks like I need to use ipipe_request_irq() instead.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -Mathieu
> mmmm it is not true, it seems we still need a
> ipipe_request_threaded_irq() to call the ackfn, put the handler in the
> queue and wake up the thread once handler is executed. Or user will have
> to move this functionality into their driver's IRQ handler.
>
> It strangely looks like ipipe_request_irq's idea is similar to what
> request_threaded_irq is already doing (delaying IRQ process later).
>
> -Mathieu
Looks like my bigger problem is that the handler_level_irq is not 
called. Only the timer handler is called (handler_percpu_devid_irq).
-Mathieu

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B (devm_request_threaded_irq)

[Philippe Gerum]

On 11/02/2015 04:21 AM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> On 15-11-01 06:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>> On 15-10-31 08:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not get
>>> triggered when interrupt fires.
>>>
>>> The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
>>> Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
>>> the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so the
>>> interrupt is happening.
>>>
>>> Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by the
>>> ipipe layer?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Mathieu
>>
>> I think I might have answered my own question.
>> Looks like I need to use ipipe_request_irq() instead.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -Mathieu
> mmmm it is not true, it seems we still need a
> ipipe_request_threaded_irq() to call the ackfn, put the handler in the
> queue and wake up the thread once handler is executed. Or user will have
> to move this functionality into their driver's IRQ handler.

The interrupt pipeline does not have to care about the thread level, it
delays the top halves, which in consequence also delays the (threaded)
bottom halves without any code change.

> 
> It strangely looks like ipipe_request_irq's idea is similar to what
> request_threaded_irq is already doing (delaying IRQ process later).
> 

Except that it virtualizes interrupt masking. Disabling IRQs for the
regular kernel won't prevent real-time IRQs hooked by
ipipe_request_irq() from being handled. That is a significant
difference. Besides, the pipeline does not implement a threaded IRQ
model for such virtualization.

-- 
Philippe.

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B (devm_request_threaded_irq)

[Philippe Gerum]

On 11/02/2015 06:23 AM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> On 15-11-01 07:21 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>> On 15-11-01 06:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>> On 15-10-31 08:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not get
>>>> triggered when interrupt fires.
>>>>
>>>> The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
>>>> Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
>>>> the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so the
>>>> interrupt is happening.
>>>>
>>>> Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by the
>>>> ipipe layer?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -Mathieu
>>>
>>> I think I might have answered my own question.
>>> Looks like I need to use ipipe_request_irq() instead.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> -Mathieu
>> mmmm it is not true, it seems we still need a
>> ipipe_request_threaded_irq() to call the ackfn, put the handler in the
>> queue and wake up the thread once handler is executed. Or user will have
>> to move this functionality into their driver's IRQ handler.
>>
>> It strangely looks like ipipe_request_irq's idea is similar to what
>> request_threaded_irq is already doing (delaying IRQ process later).
>>
>> -Mathieu
> Looks like my bigger problem is that the handler_level_irq is not
> called. Only the timer handler is called (handler_percpu_devid_irq).

Which may mean that the regular IRQ top half for that interrupt source
is not connected to the pipeline. You may want to check whether the
irqchip handling that device's IRQs has been made aware of the interrupt
pipeline.

-- 
Philippe.

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B (devm_request_threaded_irq)

[Mathieu Rondonneau]

On 15-11-02 07:15 AM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> On 11/02/2015 06:23 AM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>> On 15-11-01 07:21 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>> On 15-11-01 06:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>> On 15-10-31 08:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not get
>>>>> triggered when interrupt fires.
>>>>>
>>>>> The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
>>>>> Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
>>>>> the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so the
>>>>> interrupt is happening.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by the
>>>>> ipipe layer?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>
>>>> I think I might have answered my own question.
>>>> Looks like I need to use ipipe_request_irq() instead.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> -Mathieu
>>> mmmm it is not true, it seems we still need a
>>> ipipe_request_threaded_irq() to call the ackfn, put the handler in the
>>> queue and wake up the thread once handler is executed. Or user will have
>>> to move this functionality into their driver's IRQ handler.
>>>
>>> It strangely looks like ipipe_request_irq's idea is similar to what
>>> request_threaded_irq is already doing (delaying IRQ process later).
>>>
>>> -Mathieu
>> Looks like my bigger problem is that the handler_level_irq is not
>> called. Only the timer handler is called (handler_percpu_devid_irq).
>
> Which may mean that the regular IRQ top half for that interrupt source
> is not connected to the pipeline. You may want to check whether the
> irqchip handling that device's IRQs has been made aware of the interrupt
> pipeline.
>

Thanks for replying Philippe,
This is the think, I did change the arch_irq_default_handler to call the 
__ipipe_grab_irq and __ipipe_grab_ipi.
Is that what you are referring to when you say "interrupt source is not 
connected to the pipile", that's what __ipipe_grab_xxx does isn't it?

Obviously I am still missing something.
If I use irq_set_chained_handler in the driver then the handler gets 
called but it's just replacing the handler_irq by the driver one.
When I use request_irq then it does not call my handler (the 
action.handler one).
I will keep looking.

Thanks,
-Mathieu

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B (devm_request_threaded_irq)

[Gilles Chanteperdrix]

On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:18:37PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> On 15-11-02 07:15 AM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On 11/02/2015 06:23 AM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >> On 15-11-01 07:21 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>> On 15-11-01 06:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>> On 15-10-31 08:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not get
> >>>>> triggered when interrupt fires.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
> >>>>> Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
> >>>>> the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so the
> >>>>> interrupt is happening.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by the
> >>>>> ipipe layer?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>
> >>>> I think I might have answered my own question.
> >>>> Looks like I need to use ipipe_request_irq() instead.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> -Mathieu
> >>> mmmm it is not true, it seems we still need a
> >>> ipipe_request_threaded_irq() to call the ackfn, put the handler in the
> >>> queue and wake up the thread once handler is executed. Or user will have
> >>> to move this functionality into their driver's IRQ handler.
> >>>
> >>> It strangely looks like ipipe_request_irq's idea is similar to what
> >>> request_threaded_irq is already doing (delaying IRQ process later).
> >>>
> >>> -Mathieu
> >> Looks like my bigger problem is that the handler_level_irq is not
> >> called. Only the timer handler is called (handler_percpu_devid_irq).
> >
> > Which may mean that the regular IRQ top half for that interrupt source
> > is not connected to the pipeline. You may want to check whether the
> > irqchip handling that device's IRQs has been made aware of the interrupt
> > pipeline.
> >
> 
> Thanks for replying Philippe,
> This is the think, I did change the arch_irq_default_handler to call the 
> __ipipe_grab_irq and __ipipe_grab_ipi.
> Is that what you are referring to when you say "interrupt source is not 
> connected to the pipile", that's what __ipipe_grab_xxx does isn't it?
> 
> Obviously I am still missing something.
> If I use irq_set_chained_handler in the driver then the handler gets 
> called but it's just replacing the handler_irq by the driver one.
> When I use request_irq then it does not call my handler (the 
> action.handler one).
> I will keep looking.

This is explained here:
http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#GPIOs_as_interrupt_sources
and here:
http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER

Chained handlers have to call ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq instead of
generic_handle_irq.
And the arch irq handler has to call ipipe_handle_multi_irq or
ipipe_handle_multi_ipi instead of handle_IRQ

-- 
					    Gilles.
https://click-hack.org

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B (devm_request_threaded_irq)

[Mathieu Rondonneau]

On 15-11-03 11:04 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:18:37PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>> On 15-11-02 07:15 AM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>> On 11/02/2015 06:23 AM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>> On 15-11-01 07:21 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>> On 15-11-01 06:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>> On 15-10-31 08:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not get
>>>>>>> triggered when interrupt fires.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
>>>>>>> Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
>>>>>>> the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so the
>>>>>>> interrupt is happening.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by the
>>>>>>> ipipe layer?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think I might have answered my own question.
>>>>>> Looks like I need to use ipipe_request_irq() instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>> mmmm it is not true, it seems we still need a
>>>>> ipipe_request_threaded_irq() to call the ackfn, put the handler in the
>>>>> queue and wake up the thread once handler is executed. Or user will have
>>>>> to move this functionality into their driver's IRQ handler.
>>>>>
>>>>> It strangely looks like ipipe_request_irq's idea is similar to what
>>>>> request_threaded_irq is already doing (delaying IRQ process later).
>>>>>
>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>> Looks like my bigger problem is that the handler_level_irq is not
>>>> called. Only the timer handler is called (handler_percpu_devid_irq).
>>>
>>> Which may mean that the regular IRQ top half for that interrupt source
>>> is not connected to the pipeline. You may want to check whether the
>>> irqchip handling that device's IRQs has been made aware of the interrupt
>>> pipeline.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for replying Philippe,
>> This is the think, I did change the arch_irq_default_handler to call the
>> __ipipe_grab_irq and __ipipe_grab_ipi.
>> Is that what you are referring to when you say "interrupt source is not
>> connected to the pipile", that's what __ipipe_grab_xxx does isn't it?
>>
>> Obviously I am still missing something.
>> If I use irq_set_chained_handler in the driver then the handler gets
>> called but it's just replacing the handler_irq by the driver one.
>> When I use request_irq then it does not call my handler (the
>> action.handler one).
>> I will keep looking.
>
> This is explained here:
> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#GPIOs_as_interrupt_sources
> and here:
> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER
>
> Chained handlers have to call ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq instead of
> generic_handle_irq.
> And the arch irq handler has to call ipipe_handle_multi_irq or
> ipipe_handle_multi_ipi instead of handle_IRQ
>

Thanks Gilles for the pointers,
MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER is not enabled for RPI2 (so I did not look at the 
multi_irq_handler section), is it a requirement for the ipipe patch to work?

For GPIO I got it to work, but it is easier to me because they have 
their own irqchip.
It is the arch irq handler that cause me trouble.

Maybe I just have to enable MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER.
I will play around with it.

Thanks again for your feedback, it helps,
Regards,
-Mathieu

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B

[Mathieu Rondonneau]

On 15-11-04 04:51 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> On 15-11-03 11:04 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:18:37PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>> On 15-11-02 07:15 AM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>>> On 11/02/2015 06:23 AM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>> On 15-11-01 07:21 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>> On 15-11-01 06:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>> On 15-10-31 08:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not get
>>>>>>>> triggered when interrupt fires.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
>>>>>>>> Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
>>>>>>>> the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so the
>>>>>>>> interrupt is happening.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by the
>>>>>>>> ipipe layer?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think I might have answered my own question.
>>>>>>> Looks like I need to use ipipe_request_irq() instead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>> mmmm it is not true, it seems we still need a
>>>>>> ipipe_request_threaded_irq() to call the ackfn, put the handler in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> queue and wake up the thread once handler is executed. Or user
>>>>>> will have
>>>>>> to move this functionality into their driver's IRQ handler.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It strangely looks like ipipe_request_irq's idea is similar to what
>>>>>> request_threaded_irq is already doing (delaying IRQ process later).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>> Looks like my bigger problem is that the handler_level_irq is not
>>>>> called. Only the timer handler is called (handler_percpu_devid_irq).
>>>>
>>>> Which may mean that the regular IRQ top half for that interrupt source
>>>> is not connected to the pipeline. You may want to check whether the
>>>> irqchip handling that device's IRQs has been made aware of the
>>>> interrupt
>>>> pipeline.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for replying Philippe,
>>> This is the think, I did change the arch_irq_default_handler to call the
>>> __ipipe_grab_irq and __ipipe_grab_ipi.
>>> Is that what you are referring to when you say "interrupt source is not
>>> connected to the pipile", that's what __ipipe_grab_xxx does isn't it?
>>>
>>> Obviously I am still missing something.
>>> If I use irq_set_chained_handler in the driver then the handler gets
>>> called but it's just replacing the handler_irq by the driver one.
>>> When I use request_irq then it does not call my handler (the
>>> action.handler one).
>>> I will keep looking.
>>
>> This is explained here:
>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#GPIOs_as_interrupt_sources
>>
>> and here:
>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER
>>
>>
>> Chained handlers have to call ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq instead of
>> generic_handle_irq.
>> And the arch irq handler has to call ipipe_handle_multi_irq or
>> ipipe_handle_multi_ipi instead of handle_IRQ
>>
>
> Thanks Gilles for the pointers,
> MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER is not enabled for RPI2 (so I did not look at the
> multi_irq_handler section), is it a requirement for the ipipe patch to
> work?
>
> For GPIO I got it to work, but it is easier to me because they have
> their own irqchip.
> It is the arch irq handler that cause me trouble.
>
> Maybe I just have to enable MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER.
> I will play around with it.
>
> Thanks again for your feedback, it helps,
> Regards,
> -Mathieu
>
>
Also confirming that the ipipe_handler_multi_irq and 
ipipe_handler_multi_ipi are called properly.
so it looks like the arch irq handler is working as expected.

it is the handle_level_irq that is not called properly when I use the 
request_irq in the driver.
the desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack is called properly but not the 
irqaction->handler (that is the handler of my driver) that should have 
been triggered by handle_level_irq.

So I think my problem is that handle_level_irq() is not called.
if I register my driver handler with irq_set_chained_handler then 
ipipe_handler_multi_irq is still called, but the 
desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack does not get called and my driver handle 
gets called properly.
In this case, the ipipe is bypassed it seems since if I understand 
correctly, the irq_ack is still expected to trigger.

Maybe I am missing a ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq call in an interrupt 
handler that gets called before my driver interrupt handler gets a 
chance to get called.

I have to look at what interrupt happens before mine.

-Mathieu

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B

[Mathieu Rondonneau]

On 15-11-04 10:08 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> On 15-11-04 04:51 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>> On 15-11-03 11:04 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:18:37PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>> On 15-11-02 07:15 AM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>>>> On 11/02/2015 06:23 AM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>> On 15-11-01 07:21 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>> On 15-11-01 06:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 15-10-31 08:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not
>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>> triggered when interrupt fires.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
>>>>>>>>> Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
>>>>>>>>> the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so the
>>>>>>>>> interrupt is happening.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> ipipe layer?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think I might have answered my own question.
>>>>>>>> Looks like I need to use ipipe_request_irq() instead.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>> mmmm it is not true, it seems we still need a
>>>>>>> ipipe_request_threaded_irq() to call the ackfn, put the handler in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> queue and wake up the thread once handler is executed. Or user
>>>>>>> will have
>>>>>>> to move this functionality into their driver's IRQ handler.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It strangely looks like ipipe_request_irq's idea is similar to what
>>>>>>> request_threaded_irq is already doing (delaying IRQ process later).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>> Looks like my bigger problem is that the handler_level_irq is not
>>>>>> called. Only the timer handler is called (handler_percpu_devid_irq).
>>>>>
>>>>> Which may mean that the regular IRQ top half for that interrupt source
>>>>> is not connected to the pipeline. You may want to check whether the
>>>>> irqchip handling that device's IRQs has been made aware of the
>>>>> interrupt
>>>>> pipeline.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for replying Philippe,
>>>> This is the think, I did change the arch_irq_default_handler to call
>>>> the
>>>> __ipipe_grab_irq and __ipipe_grab_ipi.
>>>> Is that what you are referring to when you say "interrupt source is not
>>>> connected to the pipile", that's what __ipipe_grab_xxx does isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> Obviously I am still missing something.
>>>> If I use irq_set_chained_handler in the driver then the handler gets
>>>> called but it's just replacing the handler_irq by the driver one.
>>>> When I use request_irq then it does not call my handler (the
>>>> action.handler one).
>>>> I will keep looking.
>>>
>>> This is explained here:
>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#GPIOs_as_interrupt_sources
>>>
>>>
>>> and here:
>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chained handlers have to call ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq instead of
>>> generic_handle_irq.
>>> And the arch irq handler has to call ipipe_handle_multi_irq or
>>> ipipe_handle_multi_ipi instead of handle_IRQ
>>>
>>
>> Thanks Gilles for the pointers,
>> MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER is not enabled for RPI2 (so I did not look at the
>> multi_irq_handler section), is it a requirement for the ipipe patch to
>> work?
>>
>> For GPIO I got it to work, but it is easier to me because they have
>> their own irqchip.
>> It is the arch irq handler that cause me trouble.
>>
>> Maybe I just have to enable MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER.
>> I will play around with it.
>>
>> Thanks again for your feedback, it helps,
>> Regards,
>> -Mathieu
>>
>>
> Also confirming that the ipipe_handler_multi_irq and
> ipipe_handler_multi_ipi are called properly.
> so it looks like the arch irq handler is working as expected.
>
> it is the handle_level_irq that is not called properly when I use the
> request_irq in the driver.
> the desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack is called properly but not the
> irqaction->handler (that is the handler of my driver) that should have
> been triggered by handle_level_irq.
>
> So I think my problem is that handle_level_irq() is not called.
> if I register my driver handler with irq_set_chained_handler then
> ipipe_handler_multi_irq is still called, but the
> desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack does not get called and my driver handle
> gets called properly.
> In this case, the ipipe is bypassed it seems since if I understand
> correctly, the irq_ack is still expected to trigger.
>
> Maybe I am missing a ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq call in an interrupt
> handler that gets called before my driver interrupt handler gets a
> chance to get called.
>
> I have to look at what interrupt happens before mine.
>
> -Mathieu

more info:
1) interrupt (lets say #I) triggers, the ipipe_dispatch_irq calls the 
irqchip->mask() which calls ipipe_lock_irq (IPIPE_LOCK_FLAG is now set).
2) then the ipipe_dispatch_irq calls the __ipipe_set_irq_pending which 
moves the irq on the holding list because of 1).
3) then __ipipe_do_sync_stage does not call my irq handler because 
__ipipe_next_irq return -1 due to 2).

this is where I get stuck: some hw init code took a semaphore, the irq 
handler (for #I) (that is supposed to release a semaphore) never gets 
called.

In order to get back on the pending list, the irqchip->unmask must be 
called but I am not too sure when this is supposed to happen.
ideally, unmask should be called after the handler gets executed.
So it sounds to me a chicken and egg issue.

CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER is not set (although I don't think it matters).
this is with handle_level_irq.
handle_percpu_devid_irq works fine.
ipi path is also working fine.

any idea what I am missing?

Regards,
-Mathieu

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B

[Gilles Chanteperdrix]

On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 09:55:48PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> On 15-11-04 10:08 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> > On 15-11-04 04:51 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >> On 15-11-03 11:04 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:18:37PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>> On 15-11-02 07:15 AM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>>>> On 11/02/2015 06:23 AM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>> On 15-11-01 07:21 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 15-11-01 06:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 15-10-31 08:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not
> >>>>>>>>> get
> >>>>>>>>> triggered when interrupt fires.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
> >>>>>>>>> Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
> >>>>>>>>> the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so the
> >>>>>>>>> interrupt is happening.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> ipipe layer?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think I might have answered my own question.
> >>>>>>>> Looks like I need to use ipipe_request_irq() instead.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>> mmmm it is not true, it seems we still need a
> >>>>>>> ipipe_request_threaded_irq() to call the ackfn, put the handler in
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> queue and wake up the thread once handler is executed. Or user
> >>>>>>> will have
> >>>>>>> to move this functionality into their driver's IRQ handler.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It strangely looks like ipipe_request_irq's idea is similar to what
> >>>>>>> request_threaded_irq is already doing (delaying IRQ process later).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>> Looks like my bigger problem is that the handler_level_irq is not
> >>>>>> called. Only the timer handler is called (handler_percpu_devid_irq).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which may mean that the regular IRQ top half for that interrupt source
> >>>>> is not connected to the pipeline. You may want to check whether the
> >>>>> irqchip handling that device's IRQs has been made aware of the
> >>>>> interrupt
> >>>>> pipeline.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks for replying Philippe,
> >>>> This is the think, I did change the arch_irq_default_handler to call
> >>>> the
> >>>> __ipipe_grab_irq and __ipipe_grab_ipi.
> >>>> Is that what you are referring to when you say "interrupt source is not
> >>>> connected to the pipile", that's what __ipipe_grab_xxx does isn't it?
> >>>>
> >>>> Obviously I am still missing something.
> >>>> If I use irq_set_chained_handler in the driver then the handler gets
> >>>> called but it's just replacing the handler_irq by the driver one.
> >>>> When I use request_irq then it does not call my handler (the
> >>>> action.handler one).
> >>>> I will keep looking.
> >>>
> >>> This is explained here:
> >>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#GPIOs_as_interrupt_sources
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> and here:
> >>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Chained handlers have to call ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq instead of
> >>> generic_handle_irq.
> >>> And the arch irq handler has to call ipipe_handle_multi_irq or
> >>> ipipe_handle_multi_ipi instead of handle_IRQ
> >>>
> >>
> >> Thanks Gilles for the pointers,
> >> MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER is not enabled for RPI2 (so I did not look at the
> >> multi_irq_handler section), is it a requirement for the ipipe patch to
> >> work?
> >>
> >> For GPIO I got it to work, but it is easier to me because they have
> >> their own irqchip.
> >> It is the arch irq handler that cause me trouble.
> >>
> >> Maybe I just have to enable MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER.
> >> I will play around with it.
> >>
> >> Thanks again for your feedback, it helps,
> >> Regards,
> >> -Mathieu
> >>
> >>
> > Also confirming that the ipipe_handler_multi_irq and
> > ipipe_handler_multi_ipi are called properly.
> > so it looks like the arch irq handler is working as expected.
> >
> > it is the handle_level_irq that is not called properly when I use the
> > request_irq in the driver.
> > the desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack is called properly but not the
> > irqaction->handler (that is the handler of my driver) that should have
> > been triggered by handle_level_irq.
> >
> > So I think my problem is that handle_level_irq() is not called.
> > if I register my driver handler with irq_set_chained_handler then
> > ipipe_handler_multi_irq is still called, but the
> > desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack does not get called and my driver handle
> > gets called properly.
> > In this case, the ipipe is bypassed it seems since if I understand
> > correctly, the irq_ack is still expected to trigger.
> >
> > Maybe I am missing a ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq call in an interrupt
> > handler that gets called before my driver interrupt handler gets a
> > chance to get called.
> >
> > I have to look at what interrupt happens before mine.
> >
> > -Mathieu
> 
> more info:
> 1) interrupt (lets say #I) triggers, the ipipe_dispatch_irq calls the 
> irqchip->mask() which calls ipipe_lock_irq (IPIPE_LOCK_FLAG is now
> set).

it should not call irqchip->mask, but irqchip->ipipe_ack, which
should not call ipipe_lock_irq. See for instance the documentation
about fasteoi irq:
http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#flow_handler

-- 
					    Gilles.
https://click-hack.org

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B

[Mathieu Rondonneau]

On 15-11-08 12:42 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 09:55:48PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>> On 15-11-04 10:08 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>> On 15-11-04 04:51 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>> On 15-11-03 11:04 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:18:37PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>> On 15-11-02 07:15 AM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/02/2015 06:23 AM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 15-11-01 07:21 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-01 06:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 15-10-31 08:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not
>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>> triggered when interrupt fires.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
>>>>>>>>>>> Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
>>>>>>>>>>> the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so the
>>>>>>>>>>> interrupt is happening.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe layer?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think I might have answered my own question.
>>>>>>>>>> Looks like I need to use ipipe_request_irq() instead.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>>> mmmm it is not true, it seems we still need a
>>>>>>>>> ipipe_request_threaded_irq() to call the ackfn, put the handler in
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> queue and wake up the thread once handler is executed. Or user
>>>>>>>>> will have
>>>>>>>>> to move this functionality into their driver's IRQ handler.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It strangely looks like ipipe_request_irq's idea is similar to what
>>>>>>>>> request_threaded_irq is already doing (delaying IRQ process later).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>> Looks like my bigger problem is that the handler_level_irq is not
>>>>>>>> called. Only the timer handler is called (handler_percpu_devid_irq).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which may mean that the regular IRQ top half for that interrupt source
>>>>>>> is not connected to the pipeline. You may want to check whether the
>>>>>>> irqchip handling that device's IRQs has been made aware of the
>>>>>>> interrupt
>>>>>>> pipeline.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for replying Philippe,
>>>>>> This is the think, I did change the arch_irq_default_handler to call
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> __ipipe_grab_irq and __ipipe_grab_ipi.
>>>>>> Is that what you are referring to when you say "interrupt source is not
>>>>>> connected to the pipile", that's what __ipipe_grab_xxx does isn't it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously I am still missing something.
>>>>>> If I use irq_set_chained_handler in the driver then the handler gets
>>>>>> called but it's just replacing the handler_irq by the driver one.
>>>>>> When I use request_irq then it does not call my handler (the
>>>>>> action.handler one).
>>>>>> I will keep looking.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is explained here:
>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#GPIOs_as_interrupt_sources
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> and here:
>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Chained handlers have to call ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq instead of
>>>>> generic_handle_irq.
>>>>> And the arch irq handler has to call ipipe_handle_multi_irq or
>>>>> ipipe_handle_multi_ipi instead of handle_IRQ
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Gilles for the pointers,
>>>> MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER is not enabled for RPI2 (so I did not look at the
>>>> multi_irq_handler section), is it a requirement for the ipipe patch to
>>>> work?
>>>>
>>>> For GPIO I got it to work, but it is easier to me because they have
>>>> their own irqchip.
>>>> It is the arch irq handler that cause me trouble.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I just have to enable MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER.
>>>> I will play around with it.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again for your feedback, it helps,
>>>> Regards,
>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Also confirming that the ipipe_handler_multi_irq and
>>> ipipe_handler_multi_ipi are called properly.
>>> so it looks like the arch irq handler is working as expected.
>>>
>>> it is the handle_level_irq that is not called properly when I use the
>>> request_irq in the driver.
>>> the desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack is called properly but not the
>>> irqaction->handler (that is the handler of my driver) that should have
>>> been triggered by handle_level_irq.
>>>
>>> So I think my problem is that handle_level_irq() is not called.
>>> if I register my driver handler with irq_set_chained_handler then
>>> ipipe_handler_multi_irq is still called, but the
>>> desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack does not get called and my driver handle
>>> gets called properly.
>>> In this case, the ipipe is bypassed it seems since if I understand
>>> correctly, the irq_ack is still expected to trigger.
>>>
>>> Maybe I am missing a ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq call in an interrupt
>>> handler that gets called before my driver interrupt handler gets a
>>> chance to get called.
>>>
>>> I have to look at what interrupt happens before mine.
>>>
>>> -Mathieu
>>
>> more info:
>> 1) interrupt (lets say #I) triggers, the ipipe_dispatch_irq calls the
>> irqchip->mask() which calls ipipe_lock_irq (IPIPE_LOCK_FLAG is now
>> set).
>
> it should not call irqchip->mask, but irqchip->ipipe_ack, which
> should not call ipipe_lock_irq. See for instance the documentation
> about fasteoi irq:
> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#flow_handler
>

Gilles, thanks again for you response,
the code (and execution path observed) does not seem to match with what 
you are saying (please don't take this the wrong way :)), please help 
clarifying. See explanation below:

 From the doc:
"the irq_mask handler should call ipipe_lock_irq before accessing the 
interrupt controller registers"
So I did put a ipipe_lock_irq in the irq_mask.

then from kernel/irq/chip.c, the ipipe_ack looks like if calls mask and 
then ack:

} else if (handle == handle_level_irq) {
desc->ipipe_ack = __ipipe_ack_level_irq;
desc->ipipe_end = __ipipe_end_level_irq;
ipipe_root_domain->irqs[desc->irq_data.irq].ackfn = desc->ipipe_ack;

void __ipipe_ack_level_irq(unsigned irq, struct irq_desc *desc)
{
	mask_ack_irq(desc);
}

and then in __ipipe_dispatch_irq, it calls ipd->irqs[irq].ackfn() which 
is the __ipipe_ack_level_irq that calls mask and then ack (irq_mask_ack 
is NULL in my irqchip).

see below in chip.c:
static inline void mask_ack_irq(struct irq_desc *desc)
{
	if (desc->irq_data.chip->irq_mask_ack) {
		desc->irq_data.chip->irq_mask_ack(&desc->irq_data);
	}
	else {
		desc->irq_data.chip->irq_mask(&desc->irq_data);
		if (desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack) {
			desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack(&desc->irq_data);
		}
	}
	irq_state_set_masked(desc);
}

it does call mask, which is locking the IRQ preventing the ipipe_sync 
and thus, the handler to be called.

I am using xenomai-3.git master branch 
(d0d67d97d840381b3ba5284cf6b843a7523bfe53)
ipipe-core-3.18.20-arm-6.patch.

I thank you again for your patience, I really appreciate it.

Regards,
-Mathieu

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B

[Gilles Chanteperdrix]

On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:04:38AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> On 15-11-08 12:42 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 09:55:48PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >> On 15-11-04 10:08 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>> On 15-11-04 04:51 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>> On 15-11-03 11:04 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:18:37PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>> On 15-11-02 07:15 AM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 11/02/2015 06:23 AM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 15-11-01 07:21 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 15-11-01 06:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 15-10-31 08:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not
> >>>>>>>>>>> get
> >>>>>>>>>>> triggered when interrupt fires.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
> >>>>>>>>>>> Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
> >>>>>>>>>>> the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so the
> >>>>>>>>>>> interrupt is happening.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> ipipe layer?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I think I might have answered my own question.
> >>>>>>>>>> Looks like I need to use ipipe_request_irq() instead.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>>>> mmmm it is not true, it seems we still need a
> >>>>>>>>> ipipe_request_threaded_irq() to call the ackfn, put the handler in
> >>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>> queue and wake up the thread once handler is executed. Or user
> >>>>>>>>> will have
> >>>>>>>>> to move this functionality into their driver's IRQ handler.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It strangely looks like ipipe_request_irq's idea is similar to what
> >>>>>>>>> request_threaded_irq is already doing (delaying IRQ process later).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>>> Looks like my bigger problem is that the handler_level_irq is not
> >>>>>>>> called. Only the timer handler is called (handler_percpu_devid_irq).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Which may mean that the regular IRQ top half for that interrupt source
> >>>>>>> is not connected to the pipeline. You may want to check whether the
> >>>>>>> irqchip handling that device's IRQs has been made aware of the
> >>>>>>> interrupt
> >>>>>>> pipeline.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks for replying Philippe,
> >>>>>> This is the think, I did change the arch_irq_default_handler to call
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> __ipipe_grab_irq and __ipipe_grab_ipi.
> >>>>>> Is that what you are referring to when you say "interrupt source is not
> >>>>>> connected to the pipile", that's what __ipipe_grab_xxx does isn't it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Obviously I am still missing something.
> >>>>>> If I use irq_set_chained_handler in the driver then the handler gets
> >>>>>> called but it's just replacing the handler_irq by the driver one.
> >>>>>> When I use request_irq then it does not call my handler (the
> >>>>>> action.handler one).
> >>>>>> I will keep looking.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is explained here:
> >>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#GPIOs_as_interrupt_sources
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and here:
> >>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Chained handlers have to call ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq instead of
> >>>>> generic_handle_irq.
> >>>>> And the arch irq handler has to call ipipe_handle_multi_irq or
> >>>>> ipipe_handle_multi_ipi instead of handle_IRQ
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks Gilles for the pointers,
> >>>> MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER is not enabled for RPI2 (so I did not look at the
> >>>> multi_irq_handler section), is it a requirement for the ipipe patch to
> >>>> work?
> >>>>
> >>>> For GPIO I got it to work, but it is easier to me because they have
> >>>> their own irqchip.
> >>>> It is the arch irq handler that cause me trouble.
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe I just have to enable MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER.
> >>>> I will play around with it.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks again for your feedback, it helps,
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Also confirming that the ipipe_handler_multi_irq and
> >>> ipipe_handler_multi_ipi are called properly.
> >>> so it looks like the arch irq handler is working as expected.
> >>>
> >>> it is the handle_level_irq that is not called properly when I use the
> >>> request_irq in the driver.
> >>> the desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack is called properly but not the
> >>> irqaction->handler (that is the handler of my driver) that should have
> >>> been triggered by handle_level_irq.
> >>>
> >>> So I think my problem is that handle_level_irq() is not called.
> >>> if I register my driver handler with irq_set_chained_handler then
> >>> ipipe_handler_multi_irq is still called, but the
> >>> desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack does not get called and my driver handle
> >>> gets called properly.
> >>> In this case, the ipipe is bypassed it seems since if I understand
> >>> correctly, the irq_ack is still expected to trigger.
> >>>
> >>> Maybe I am missing a ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq call in an interrupt
> >>> handler that gets called before my driver interrupt handler gets a
> >>> chance to get called.
> >>>
> >>> I have to look at what interrupt happens before mine.
> >>>
> >>> -Mathieu
> >>
> >> more info:
> >> 1) interrupt (lets say #I) triggers, the ipipe_dispatch_irq calls the
> >> irqchip->mask() which calls ipipe_lock_irq (IPIPE_LOCK_FLAG is now
> >> set).
> >
> > it should not call irqchip->mask, but irqchip->ipipe_ack, which
> > should not call ipipe_lock_irq. See for instance the documentation
> > about fasteoi irq:
> > http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#flow_handler
> >
> 
> Gilles, thanks again for you response,
> the code (and execution path observed) does not seem to match with what 
> you are saying (please don't take this the wrong way :)), please help 
> clarifying. See explanation below:
> 
>  From the doc:
> "the irq_mask handler should call ipipe_lock_irq before accessing the 
> interrupt controller registers"
> So I did put a ipipe_lock_irq in the irq_mask.

The documentation also says:
"If the flow handler is “handle_fasteoi_irq” the implementation of
the “struct irq_chip” members should be modified:"
and
 an irq_hold handler should be added (when CONFIG_IPIPE is enabled)
 having the same effect as the irq_mask handler (but without the
 call to ipipe_lock_irq), and the irq_eoi handler. 

In which case the irq_hold handler is called upon handling the
interrupt.

You can not just apply half of what the documentation says and hope
to have a working system.

-- 
					    Gilles.
https://click-hack.org

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B

[Mathieu Rondonneau]

On 15-11-08 09:10 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:04:38AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>> On 15-11-08 12:42 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 09:55:48PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>> On 15-11-04 10:08 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>> On 15-11-04 04:51 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>> On 15-11-03 11:04 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:18:37PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 15-11-02 07:15 AM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2015 06:23 AM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-01 07:21 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-01 06:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-10-31 08:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered when interrupt fires.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interrupt is happening.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe layer?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I might have answered my own question.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like I need to use ipipe_request_irq() instead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>>>>> mmmm it is not true, it seems we still need a
>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe_request_threaded_irq() to call the ackfn, put the handler in
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> queue and wake up the thread once handler is executed. Or user
>>>>>>>>>>> will have
>>>>>>>>>>> to move this functionality into their driver's IRQ handler.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It strangely looks like ipipe_request_irq's idea is similar to what
>>>>>>>>>>> request_threaded_irq is already doing (delaying IRQ process later).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>>>> Looks like my bigger problem is that the handler_level_irq is not
>>>>>>>>>> called. Only the timer handler is called (handler_percpu_devid_irq).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which may mean that the regular IRQ top half for that interrupt source
>>>>>>>>> is not connected to the pipeline. You may want to check whether the
>>>>>>>>> irqchip handling that device's IRQs has been made aware of the
>>>>>>>>> interrupt
>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for replying Philippe,
>>>>>>>> This is the think, I did change the arch_irq_default_handler to call
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> __ipipe_grab_irq and __ipipe_grab_ipi.
>>>>>>>> Is that what you are referring to when you say "interrupt source is not
>>>>>>>> connected to the pipile", that's what __ipipe_grab_xxx does isn't it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obviously I am still missing something.
>>>>>>>> If I use irq_set_chained_handler in the driver then the handler gets
>>>>>>>> called but it's just replacing the handler_irq by the driver one.
>>>>>>>> When I use request_irq then it does not call my handler (the
>>>>>>>> action.handler one).
>>>>>>>> I will keep looking.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is explained here:
>>>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#GPIOs_as_interrupt_sources
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and here:
>>>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chained handlers have to call ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq instead of
>>>>>>> generic_handle_irq.
>>>>>>> And the arch irq handler has to call ipipe_handle_multi_irq or
>>>>>>> ipipe_handle_multi_ipi instead of handle_IRQ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks Gilles for the pointers,
>>>>>> MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER is not enabled for RPI2 (so I did not look at the
>>>>>> multi_irq_handler section), is it a requirement for the ipipe patch to
>>>>>> work?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For GPIO I got it to work, but it is easier to me because they have
>>>>>> their own irqchip.
>>>>>> It is the arch irq handler that cause me trouble.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe I just have to enable MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER.
>>>>>> I will play around with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks again for your feedback, it helps,
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Also confirming that the ipipe_handler_multi_irq and
>>>>> ipipe_handler_multi_ipi are called properly.
>>>>> so it looks like the arch irq handler is working as expected.
>>>>>
>>>>> it is the handle_level_irq that is not called properly when I use the
>>>>> request_irq in the driver.
>>>>> the desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack is called properly but not the
>>>>> irqaction->handler (that is the handler of my driver) that should have
>>>>> been triggered by handle_level_irq.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I think my problem is that handle_level_irq() is not called.
>>>>> if I register my driver handler with irq_set_chained_handler then
>>>>> ipipe_handler_multi_irq is still called, but the
>>>>> desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack does not get called and my driver handle
>>>>> gets called properly.
>>>>> In this case, the ipipe is bypassed it seems since if I understand
>>>>> correctly, the irq_ack is still expected to trigger.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe I am missing a ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq call in an interrupt
>>>>> handler that gets called before my driver interrupt handler gets a
>>>>> chance to get called.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to look at what interrupt happens before mine.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>
>>>> more info:
>>>> 1) interrupt (lets say #I) triggers, the ipipe_dispatch_irq calls the
>>>> irqchip->mask() which calls ipipe_lock_irq (IPIPE_LOCK_FLAG is now
>>>> set).
>>>
>>> it should not call irqchip->mask, but irqchip->ipipe_ack, which
>>> should not call ipipe_lock_irq. See for instance the documentation
>>> about fasteoi irq:
>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#flow_handler
>>>
>>
>> Gilles, thanks again for you response,
>> the code (and execution path observed) does not seem to match with what
>> you are saying (please don't take this the wrong way :)), please help
>> clarifying. See explanation below:
>>
>>   From the doc:
>> "the irq_mask handler should call ipipe_lock_irq before accessing the
>> interrupt controller registers"
>> So I did put a ipipe_lock_irq in the irq_mask.
>
> The documentation also says:
> "If the flow handler is “handle_fasteoi_irq” the implementation of
> the “struct irq_chip” members should be modified:"
> and
>   an irq_hold handler should be added (when CONFIG_IPIPE is enabled)
>   having the same effect as the irq_mask handler (but without the
>   call to ipipe_lock_irq), and the irq_eoi handler.
>
> In which case the irq_hold handler is called upon handling the
> interrupt.
>
> You can not just apply half of what the documentation says and hope
> to have a working system.
>

But I don't use handle_fasteoi_irq, I use handle_level_irq.

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B

[Gilles Chanteperdrix]

On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:20:47AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> On 15-11-08 09:10 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:04:38AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >> On 15-11-08 12:42 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 09:55:48PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>> On 15-11-04 10:08 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>> On 15-11-04 04:51 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>> On 15-11-03 11:04 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:18:37PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 15-11-02 07:15 AM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2015 06:23 AM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-01 07:21 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-01 06:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-10-31 08:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered when interrupt fires.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> interrupt is happening.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe layer?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think I might have answered my own question.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like I need to use ipipe_request_irq() instead.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>>>>>> mmmm it is not true, it seems we still need a
> >>>>>>>>>>> ipipe_request_threaded_irq() to call the ackfn, put the handler in
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> queue and wake up the thread once handler is executed. Or user
> >>>>>>>>>>> will have
> >>>>>>>>>>> to move this functionality into their driver's IRQ handler.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It strangely looks like ipipe_request_irq's idea is similar to what
> >>>>>>>>>>> request_threaded_irq is already doing (delaying IRQ process later).
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>>>>> Looks like my bigger problem is that the handler_level_irq is not
> >>>>>>>>>> called. Only the timer handler is called (handler_percpu_devid_irq).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Which may mean that the regular IRQ top half for that interrupt source
> >>>>>>>>> is not connected to the pipeline. You may want to check whether the
> >>>>>>>>> irqchip handling that device's IRQs has been made aware of the
> >>>>>>>>> interrupt
> >>>>>>>>> pipeline.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks for replying Philippe,
> >>>>>>>> This is the think, I did change the arch_irq_default_handler to call
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> __ipipe_grab_irq and __ipipe_grab_ipi.
> >>>>>>>> Is that what you are referring to when you say "interrupt source is not
> >>>>>>>> connected to the pipile", that's what __ipipe_grab_xxx does isn't it?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Obviously I am still missing something.
> >>>>>>>> If I use irq_set_chained_handler in the driver then the handler gets
> >>>>>>>> called but it's just replacing the handler_irq by the driver one.
> >>>>>>>> When I use request_irq then it does not call my handler (the
> >>>>>>>> action.handler one).
> >>>>>>>> I will keep looking.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This is explained here:
> >>>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#GPIOs_as_interrupt_sources
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> and here:
> >>>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Chained handlers have to call ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq instead of
> >>>>>>> generic_handle_irq.
> >>>>>>> And the arch irq handler has to call ipipe_handle_multi_irq or
> >>>>>>> ipipe_handle_multi_ipi instead of handle_IRQ
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks Gilles for the pointers,
> >>>>>> MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER is not enabled for RPI2 (so I did not look at the
> >>>>>> multi_irq_handler section), is it a requirement for the ipipe patch to
> >>>>>> work?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For GPIO I got it to work, but it is easier to me because they have
> >>>>>> their own irqchip.
> >>>>>> It is the arch irq handler that cause me trouble.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Maybe I just have to enable MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER.
> >>>>>> I will play around with it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks again for your feedback, it helps,
> >>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Also confirming that the ipipe_handler_multi_irq and
> >>>>> ipipe_handler_multi_ipi are called properly.
> >>>>> so it looks like the arch irq handler is working as expected.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> it is the handle_level_irq that is not called properly when I use the
> >>>>> request_irq in the driver.
> >>>>> the desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack is called properly but not the
> >>>>> irqaction->handler (that is the handler of my driver) that should have
> >>>>> been triggered by handle_level_irq.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So I think my problem is that handle_level_irq() is not called.
> >>>>> if I register my driver handler with irq_set_chained_handler then
> >>>>> ipipe_handler_multi_irq is still called, but the
> >>>>> desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack does not get called and my driver handle
> >>>>> gets called properly.
> >>>>> In this case, the ipipe is bypassed it seems since if I understand
> >>>>> correctly, the irq_ack is still expected to trigger.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Maybe I am missing a ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq call in an interrupt
> >>>>> handler that gets called before my driver interrupt handler gets a
> >>>>> chance to get called.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have to look at what interrupt happens before mine.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>
> >>>> more info:
> >>>> 1) interrupt (lets say #I) triggers, the ipipe_dispatch_irq calls the
> >>>> irqchip->mask() which calls ipipe_lock_irq (IPIPE_LOCK_FLAG is now
> >>>> set).
> >>>
> >>> it should not call irqchip->mask, but irqchip->ipipe_ack, which
> >>> should not call ipipe_lock_irq. See for instance the documentation
> >>> about fasteoi irq:
> >>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#flow_handler
> >>>
> >>
> >> Gilles, thanks again for you response,
> >> the code (and execution path observed) does not seem to match with what
> >> you are saying (please don't take this the wrong way :)), please help
> >> clarifying. See explanation below:
> >>
> >>   From the doc:
> >> "the irq_mask handler should call ipipe_lock_irq before accessing the
> >> interrupt controller registers"
> >> So I did put a ipipe_lock_irq in the irq_mask.
> >
> > The documentation also says:
> > "If the flow handler is “handle_fasteoi_irq” the implementation of
> > the “struct irq_chip” members should be modified:"
> > and
> >   an irq_hold handler should be added (when CONFIG_IPIPE is enabled)
> >   having the same effect as the irq_mask handler (but without the
> >   call to ipipe_lock_irq), and the irq_eoi handler.
> >
> > In which case the irq_hold handler is called upon handling the
> > interrupt.
> >
> > You can not just apply half of what the documentation says and hope
> > to have a working system.
> >
> 
> But I don't use handle_fasteoi_irq, I use handle_level_irq.

Exactly my point.

-- 
					    Gilles.
https://click-hack.org

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B

[Mathieu Rondonneau]

On 15-11-08 09:26 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:20:47AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>> On 15-11-08 09:10 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:04:38AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>> On 15-11-08 12:42 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 09:55:48PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>> On 15-11-04 10:08 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>> On 15-11-04 04:51 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 15-11-03 11:04 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:18:37PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-02 07:15 AM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2015 06:23 AM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-01 07:21 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-01 06:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-10-31 08:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered when interrupt fires.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interrupt is happening.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe layer?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I might have answered my own question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like I need to use ipipe_request_irq() instead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mmmm it is not true, it seems we still need a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe_request_threaded_irq() to call the ackfn, put the handler in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> queue and wake up the thread once handler is executed. Or user
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to move this functionality into their driver's IRQ handler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It strangely looks like ipipe_request_irq's idea is similar to what
>>>>>>>>>>>>> request_threaded_irq is already doing (delaying IRQ process later).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like my bigger problem is that the handler_level_irq is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> called. Only the timer handler is called (handler_percpu_devid_irq).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Which may mean that the regular IRQ top half for that interrupt source
>>>>>>>>>>> is not connected to the pipeline. You may want to check whether the
>>>>>>>>>>> irqchip handling that device's IRQs has been made aware of the
>>>>>>>>>>> interrupt
>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for replying Philippe,
>>>>>>>>>> This is the think, I did change the arch_irq_default_handler to call
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> __ipipe_grab_irq and __ipipe_grab_ipi.
>>>>>>>>>> Is that what you are referring to when you say "interrupt source is not
>>>>>>>>>> connected to the pipile", that's what __ipipe_grab_xxx does isn't it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Obviously I am still missing something.
>>>>>>>>>> If I use irq_set_chained_handler in the driver then the handler gets
>>>>>>>>>> called but it's just replacing the handler_irq by the driver one.
>>>>>>>>>> When I use request_irq then it does not call my handler (the
>>>>>>>>>> action.handler one).
>>>>>>>>>> I will keep looking.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is explained here:
>>>>>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#GPIOs_as_interrupt_sources
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and here:
>>>>>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chained handlers have to call ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq instead of
>>>>>>>>> generic_handle_irq.
>>>>>>>>> And the arch irq handler has to call ipipe_handle_multi_irq or
>>>>>>>>> ipipe_handle_multi_ipi instead of handle_IRQ
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks Gilles for the pointers,
>>>>>>>> MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER is not enabled for RPI2 (so I did not look at the
>>>>>>>> multi_irq_handler section), is it a requirement for the ipipe patch to
>>>>>>>> work?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For GPIO I got it to work, but it is easier to me because they have
>>>>>>>> their own irqchip.
>>>>>>>> It is the arch irq handler that cause me trouble.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe I just have to enable MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER.
>>>>>>>> I will play around with it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks again for your feedback, it helps,
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also confirming that the ipipe_handler_multi_irq and
>>>>>>> ipipe_handler_multi_ipi are called properly.
>>>>>>> so it looks like the arch irq handler is working as expected.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it is the handle_level_irq that is not called properly when I use the
>>>>>>> request_irq in the driver.
>>>>>>> the desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack is called properly but not the
>>>>>>> irqaction->handler (that is the handler of my driver) that should have
>>>>>>> been triggered by handle_level_irq.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I think my problem is that handle_level_irq() is not called.
>>>>>>> if I register my driver handler with irq_set_chained_handler then
>>>>>>> ipipe_handler_multi_irq is still called, but the
>>>>>>> desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack does not get called and my driver handle
>>>>>>> gets called properly.
>>>>>>> In this case, the ipipe is bypassed it seems since if I understand
>>>>>>> correctly, the irq_ack is still expected to trigger.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe I am missing a ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq call in an interrupt
>>>>>>> handler that gets called before my driver interrupt handler gets a
>>>>>>> chance to get called.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have to look at what interrupt happens before mine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>
>>>>>> more info:
>>>>>> 1) interrupt (lets say #I) triggers, the ipipe_dispatch_irq calls the
>>>>>> irqchip->mask() which calls ipipe_lock_irq (IPIPE_LOCK_FLAG is now
>>>>>> set).
>>>>>
>>>>> it should not call irqchip->mask, but irqchip->ipipe_ack, which
>>>>> should not call ipipe_lock_irq. See for instance the documentation
>>>>> about fasteoi irq:
>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#flow_handler
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gilles, thanks again for you response,
>>>> the code (and execution path observed) does not seem to match with what
>>>> you are saying (please don't take this the wrong way :)), please help
>>>> clarifying. See explanation below:
>>>>
>>>>    From the doc:
>>>> "the irq_mask handler should call ipipe_lock_irq before accessing the
>>>> interrupt controller registers"
>>>> So I did put a ipipe_lock_irq in the irq_mask.
>>>
>>> The documentation also says:
>>> "If the flow handler is “handle_fasteoi_irq” the implementation of
>>> the “struct irq_chip” members should be modified:"
>>> and
>>>    an irq_hold handler should be added (when CONFIG_IPIPE is enabled)
>>>    having the same effect as the irq_mask handler (but without the
>>>    call to ipipe_lock_irq), and the irq_eoi handler.
>>>
>>> In which case the irq_hold handler is called upon handling the
>>> interrupt.
>>>
>>> You can not just apply half of what the documentation says and hope
>>> to have a working system.
>>>
>>
>> But I don't use handle_fasteoi_irq, I use handle_level_irq.
>
> Exactly my point.
>

ok so you are saying, that for handle_level_irq, do not add the 
ipipe_lock_irq in the irq_mask?
Can you confirm this?
Does it mean for handle_level_irq, the irq_hold and irq_release are not 
needed as well.
Ok this is the part I did not understood from the doc then. I think this 
could be clarified in the doc. (more clarification does not hurt).

Just to confirm, you were saying "it should not call irqchip->mask, but 
irqchip->ipipe_ack".
But for handle_level_irq the mask and the ack are called.
Is that correct?

I think understand what my mistake was.
I have not tested it yet but without the irq_lock, it should call the 
handler.
Thank you Gilles again!

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B

[Gilles Chanteperdrix]

On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:36:16AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> On 15-11-08 09:26 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:20:47AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >> On 15-11-08 09:10 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:04:38AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>> On 15-11-08 12:42 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 09:55:48PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>> On 15-11-04 10:08 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 15-11-04 04:51 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 15-11-03 11:04 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:18:37PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-02 07:15 AM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2015 06:23 AM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-01 07:21 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-01 06:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-10-31 08:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered when interrupt fires.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interrupt is happening.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe layer?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I might have answered my own question.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like I need to use ipipe_request_irq() instead.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> mmmm it is not true, it seems we still need a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe_request_threaded_irq() to call the ackfn, put the handler in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> queue and wake up the thread once handler is executed. Or user
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> will have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to move this functionality into their driver's IRQ handler.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It strangely looks like ipipe_request_irq's idea is similar to what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> request_threaded_irq is already doing (delaying IRQ process later).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like my bigger problem is that the handler_level_irq is not
> >>>>>>>>>>>> called. Only the timer handler is called (handler_percpu_devid_irq).
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Which may mean that the regular IRQ top half for that interrupt source
> >>>>>>>>>>> is not connected to the pipeline. You may want to check whether the
> >>>>>>>>>>> irqchip handling that device's IRQs has been made aware of the
> >>>>>>>>>>> interrupt
> >>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for replying Philippe,
> >>>>>>>>>> This is the think, I did change the arch_irq_default_handler to call
> >>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>> __ipipe_grab_irq and __ipipe_grab_ipi.
> >>>>>>>>>> Is that what you are referring to when you say "interrupt source is not
> >>>>>>>>>> connected to the pipile", that's what __ipipe_grab_xxx does isn't it?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Obviously I am still missing something.
> >>>>>>>>>> If I use irq_set_chained_handler in the driver then the handler gets
> >>>>>>>>>> called but it's just replacing the handler_irq by the driver one.
> >>>>>>>>>> When I use request_irq then it does not call my handler (the
> >>>>>>>>>> action.handler one).
> >>>>>>>>>> I will keep looking.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This is explained here:
> >>>>>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#GPIOs_as_interrupt_sources
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> and here:
> >>>>>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Chained handlers have to call ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq instead of
> >>>>>>>>> generic_handle_irq.
> >>>>>>>>> And the arch irq handler has to call ipipe_handle_multi_irq or
> >>>>>>>>> ipipe_handle_multi_ipi instead of handle_IRQ
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks Gilles for the pointers,
> >>>>>>>> MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER is not enabled for RPI2 (so I did not look at the
> >>>>>>>> multi_irq_handler section), is it a requirement for the ipipe patch to
> >>>>>>>> work?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For GPIO I got it to work, but it is easier to me because they have
> >>>>>>>> their own irqchip.
> >>>>>>>> It is the arch irq handler that cause me trouble.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Maybe I just have to enable MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER.
> >>>>>>>> I will play around with it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks again for your feedback, it helps,
> >>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Also confirming that the ipipe_handler_multi_irq and
> >>>>>>> ipipe_handler_multi_ipi are called properly.
> >>>>>>> so it looks like the arch irq handler is working as expected.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> it is the handle_level_irq that is not called properly when I use the
> >>>>>>> request_irq in the driver.
> >>>>>>> the desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack is called properly but not the
> >>>>>>> irqaction->handler (that is the handler of my driver) that should have
> >>>>>>> been triggered by handle_level_irq.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So I think my problem is that handle_level_irq() is not called.
> >>>>>>> if I register my driver handler with irq_set_chained_handler then
> >>>>>>> ipipe_handler_multi_irq is still called, but the
> >>>>>>> desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack does not get called and my driver handle
> >>>>>>> gets called properly.
> >>>>>>> In this case, the ipipe is bypassed it seems since if I understand
> >>>>>>> correctly, the irq_ack is still expected to trigger.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Maybe I am missing a ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq call in an interrupt
> >>>>>>> handler that gets called before my driver interrupt handler gets a
> >>>>>>> chance to get called.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I have to look at what interrupt happens before mine.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> more info:
> >>>>>> 1) interrupt (lets say #I) triggers, the ipipe_dispatch_irq calls the
> >>>>>> irqchip->mask() which calls ipipe_lock_irq (IPIPE_LOCK_FLAG is now
> >>>>>> set).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> it should not call irqchip->mask, but irqchip->ipipe_ack, which
> >>>>> should not call ipipe_lock_irq. See for instance the documentation
> >>>>> about fasteoi irq:
> >>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#flow_handler
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Gilles, thanks again for you response,
> >>>> the code (and execution path observed) does not seem to match with what
> >>>> you are saying (please don't take this the wrong way :)), please help
> >>>> clarifying. See explanation below:
> >>>>
> >>>>    From the doc:
> >>>> "the irq_mask handler should call ipipe_lock_irq before accessing the
> >>>> interrupt controller registers"
> >>>> So I did put a ipipe_lock_irq in the irq_mask.
> >>>
> >>> The documentation also says:
> >>> "If the flow handler is “handle_fasteoi_irq” the implementation of
> >>> the “struct irq_chip” members should be modified:"
> >>> and
> >>>    an irq_hold handler should be added (when CONFIG_IPIPE is enabled)
> >>>    having the same effect as the irq_mask handler (but without the
> >>>    call to ipipe_lock_irq), and the irq_eoi handler.
> >>>
> >>> In which case the irq_hold handler is called upon handling the
> >>> interrupt.
> >>>
> >>> You can not just apply half of what the documentation says and hope
> >>> to have a working system.
> >>>
> >>
> >> But I don't use handle_fasteoi_irq, I use handle_level_irq.
> >
> > Exactly my point.
> >
> 
> ok so you are saying, that for handle_level_irq, do not add the 
> ipipe_lock_irq in the irq_mask?
> Can you confirm this?
> Does it mean for handle_level_irq, the irq_hold and irq_release are not 
> needed as well.
> Ok this is the part I did not understood from the doc then. I think this 
> could be clarified in the doc. (more clarification does not hurt).

The doc looks clear enough to me. It says:

if condition, then 
   do 1
   do 2
   do 3

if condition is not true, there is no reason to do 1, 2, or 3.

perhaps you want me to add

else
   do nothing
?

As a C programmer, do you put, 
    else
	;
To all your ifs with no else ?

> 
> Just to confirm, you were saying "it should not call irqchip->mask, but 
> irqchip->ipipe_ack".
> But for handle_level_irq the mask and the ack are called.
> Is that correct?

The answer is in the implementation of ipipe_ack for level
interrupts. It calls mask_ack_irq.

> 
> I think understand what my mistake was.
> I have not tested it yet but without the irq_lock, it should call the 
> handler.
> Thank you Gilles again!

You are welcome. I suggest however to take the time to read the
documentation completely from beginning to end, before jumping
head-on in the port, only reading parts of it, and wasting time
stupidly because you only read part of a sentence.

-- 
					    Gilles.
https://click-hack.org

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B

[Mathieu Rondonneau]

On 15-11-08 09:45 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:36:16AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>> On 15-11-08 09:26 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:20:47AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>> On 15-11-08 09:10 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:04:38AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>> On 15-11-08 12:42 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 09:55:48PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 15-11-04 10:08 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-04 04:51 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-03 11:04 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:18:37PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-02 07:15 AM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2015 06:23 AM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-01 07:21 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-01 06:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-10-31 08:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered when interrupt fires.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interrupt is happening.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe layer?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I might have answered my own question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like I need to use ipipe_request_irq() instead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mmmm it is not true, it seems we still need a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe_request_threaded_irq() to call the ackfn, put the handler in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> queue and wake up the thread once handler is executed. Or user
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to move this functionality into their driver's IRQ handler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It strangely looks like ipipe_request_irq's idea is similar to what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request_threaded_irq is already doing (delaying IRQ process later).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like my bigger problem is that the handler_level_irq is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called. Only the timer handler is called (handler_percpu_devid_irq).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which may mean that the regular IRQ top half for that interrupt source
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not connected to the pipeline. You may want to check whether the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> irqchip handling that device's IRQs has been made aware of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> interrupt
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for replying Philippe,
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the think, I did change the arch_irq_default_handler to call
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> __ipipe_grab_irq and __ipipe_grab_ipi.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that what you are referring to when you say "interrupt source is not
>>>>>>>>>>>> connected to the pipile", that's what __ipipe_grab_xxx does isn't it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously I am still missing something.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If I use irq_set_chained_handler in the driver then the handler gets
>>>>>>>>>>>> called but it's just replacing the handler_irq by the driver one.
>>>>>>>>>>>> When I use request_irq then it does not call my handler (the
>>>>>>>>>>>> action.handler one).
>>>>>>>>>>>> I will keep looking.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is explained here:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#GPIOs_as_interrupt_sources
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> and here:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Chained handlers have to call ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq instead of
>>>>>>>>>>> generic_handle_irq.
>>>>>>>>>>> And the arch irq handler has to call ipipe_handle_multi_irq or
>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe_handle_multi_ipi instead of handle_IRQ
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Gilles for the pointers,
>>>>>>>>>> MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER is not enabled for RPI2 (so I did not look at the
>>>>>>>>>> multi_irq_handler section), is it a requirement for the ipipe patch to
>>>>>>>>>> work?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For GPIO I got it to work, but it is easier to me because they have
>>>>>>>>>> their own irqchip.
>>>>>>>>>> It is the arch irq handler that cause me trouble.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe I just have to enable MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER.
>>>>>>>>>> I will play around with it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for your feedback, it helps,
>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also confirming that the ipipe_handler_multi_irq and
>>>>>>>>> ipipe_handler_multi_ipi are called properly.
>>>>>>>>> so it looks like the arch irq handler is working as expected.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it is the handle_level_irq that is not called properly when I use the
>>>>>>>>> request_irq in the driver.
>>>>>>>>> the desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack is called properly but not the
>>>>>>>>> irqaction->handler (that is the handler of my driver) that should have
>>>>>>>>> been triggered by handle_level_irq.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So I think my problem is that handle_level_irq() is not called.
>>>>>>>>> if I register my driver handler with irq_set_chained_handler then
>>>>>>>>> ipipe_handler_multi_irq is still called, but the
>>>>>>>>> desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack does not get called and my driver handle
>>>>>>>>> gets called properly.
>>>>>>>>> In this case, the ipipe is bypassed it seems since if I understand
>>>>>>>>> correctly, the irq_ack is still expected to trigger.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe I am missing a ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq call in an interrupt
>>>>>>>>> handler that gets called before my driver interrupt handler gets a
>>>>>>>>> chance to get called.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have to look at what interrupt happens before mine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> more info:
>>>>>>>> 1) interrupt (lets say #I) triggers, the ipipe_dispatch_irq calls the
>>>>>>>> irqchip->mask() which calls ipipe_lock_irq (IPIPE_LOCK_FLAG is now
>>>>>>>> set).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> it should not call irqchip->mask, but irqchip->ipipe_ack, which
>>>>>>> should not call ipipe_lock_irq. See for instance the documentation
>>>>>>> about fasteoi irq:
>>>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#flow_handler
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gilles, thanks again for you response,
>>>>>> the code (and execution path observed) does not seem to match with what
>>>>>> you are saying (please don't take this the wrong way :)), please help
>>>>>> clarifying. See explanation below:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     From the doc:
>>>>>> "the irq_mask handler should call ipipe_lock_irq before accessing the
>>>>>> interrupt controller registers"
>>>>>> So I did put a ipipe_lock_irq in the irq_mask.
>>>>>
>>>>> The documentation also says:
>>>>> "If the flow handler is “handle_fasteoi_irq” the implementation of
>>>>> the “struct irq_chip” members should be modified:"
>>>>> and
>>>>>     an irq_hold handler should be added (when CONFIG_IPIPE is enabled)
>>>>>     having the same effect as the irq_mask handler (but without the
>>>>>     call to ipipe_lock_irq), and the irq_eoi handler.
>>>>>
>>>>> In which case the irq_hold handler is called upon handling the
>>>>> interrupt.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can not just apply half of what the documentation says and hope
>>>>> to have a working system.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But I don't use handle_fasteoi_irq, I use handle_level_irq.
>>>
>>> Exactly my point.
>>>
>>
>> ok so you are saying, that for handle_level_irq, do not add the
>> ipipe_lock_irq in the irq_mask?
>> Can you confirm this?
>> Does it mean for handle_level_irq, the irq_hold and irq_release are not
>> needed as well.
>> Ok this is the part I did not understood from the doc then. I think this
>> could be clarified in the doc. (more clarification does not hurt).
>
> The doc looks clear enough to me. It says:
>
> if condition, then
>     do 1
>     do 2
>     do 3
>
> if condition is not true, there is no reason to do 1, 2, or 3.
>
> perhaps you want me to add
>
> else
>     do nothing
> ?
>
> As a C programmer, do you put,
>      else
> 	;
> To all your ifs with no else ?
>

Maybe I was not expecting the doc to be structured in a coding language way.
But that's ok, now I know it, the doc make sense :)

the doc focus on the handle_fasteoi_irq (and briefly handle_edge_irq), 
there are other flow handler that could use some more porting details:

if (handle == handle_percpu_irq ||
	handle == handle_percpu_devid_irq) {
	if (irq_desc_get_chip(desc) &&
		irq_desc_get_chip(desc)->irq_hold) {
			desc->ipipe_ack = __ipipe_ack_fasteoi_irq;
			desc->ipipe_end = __ipipe_end_fasteoi_irq;
		} else {
			desc->ipipe_ack = __ipipe_ack_percpu_irq;
			desc->ipipe_end = __ipipe_nop_irq;
		}

In the RPI2 case, it needs to have two chipirq, one for the 
handle_percpu_devid_irq and one for the handle_level_irq.

reading the doc, I have assumed (wrongly) that the handle_level_irq 
could also be using the same chipirq than the handle_percpu_devid_irq 
since the doc did not say otherwise.

For the RPI2, both handle_level_irq and handle_percpu_devid_irq are 
using the same chipirq already so when I ported ipipe to it, nothing was 
mentioned for handle_percpu_devid_irq which I learned by reading the 
code (see copy past above).

So the part of the doc that says: "if the flow handler is 
“handle_edge_irq”, and the systems locks up when the first interrupt 
happens, try replacing “handle_edge_irq” with “handle_level_irq”.

could use some additional clarification as follow: "..., try replacing 
“handle_edge_irq” with “handle_level_irq” since those should not have 
any call to ipipe_lock_irq/ipipe_unlock_irq in their respective irqchip 
handler irq_mask/irq_unmask".

Also, a mention to handle_percpu_devid_irq could be added as follow:
"If the flow handler is “handle_fasteoi_irq”  or 
"handle_percpu_devid_irq" or "handle_percpu_irq", the implementation of 
the “struct irq_chip” members should be modified".

Just a suggestion.
I just fell into a crack and I am proposing a change so that others 
don't do the same mistake.


>>
>> Just to confirm, you were saying "it should not call irqchip->mask, but
>> irqchip->ipipe_ack".
>> But for handle_level_irq the mask and the ack are called.
>> Is that correct?
>
> The answer is in the implementation of ipipe_ack for level
> interrupts. It calls mask_ack_irq.
>
Correct, so it does call mask, but you said it does not earlier.

>>
>> I think understand what my mistake was.
>> I have not tested it yet but without the irq_lock, it should call the
>> handler.
>> Thank you Gilles again!
>
> You are welcome. I suggest however to take the time to read the
> documentation completely from beginning to end, before jumping
> head-on in the port, only reading parts of it, and wasting time
> stupidly because you only read part of a sentence.
>
It was not a waste of time to me, I got the opportunity to look at the 
internal of the ipipe code to understand what my problem was.
I see this has a learning exercise (at spare time).

The code is well written.
Writing a porting guide is difficult because it does not cover newer 
targets implementation. The document could still evolve with user's 
input. After all, I think the goal is to encourage users to create more 
port.

Side note: with two irqchip (one for handle_level_irq that does not 
lock_irq in mask and the one for handle_percpu_devid_irq that does the 
lock_irq in mask()) it does work.

Thanks,
-Mathieu

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B

[Gilles Chanteperdrix]

On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 01:47:02PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> On 15-11-08 09:45 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:36:16AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >> On 15-11-08 09:26 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:20:47AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>> On 15-11-08 09:10 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:04:38AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>> On 15-11-08 12:42 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 09:55:48PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 15-11-04 10:08 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 15-11-04 04:51 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-03 11:04 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:18:37PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-02 07:15 AM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2015 06:23 AM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-01 07:21 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-01 06:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-10-31 08:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered when interrupt fires.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interrupt is happening.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe layer?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I might have answered my own question.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like I need to use ipipe_request_irq() instead.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mmmm it is not true, it seems we still need a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe_request_threaded_irq() to call the ackfn, put the handler in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> queue and wake up the thread once handler is executed. Or user
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to move this functionality into their driver's IRQ handler.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It strangely looks like ipipe_request_irq's idea is similar to what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request_threaded_irq is already doing (delaying IRQ process later).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like my bigger problem is that the handler_level_irq is not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> called. Only the timer handler is called (handler_percpu_devid_irq).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Which may mean that the regular IRQ top half for that interrupt source
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is not connected to the pipeline. You may want to check whether the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> irqchip handling that device's IRQs has been made aware of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> interrupt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for replying Philippe,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is the think, I did change the arch_irq_default_handler to call
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> __ipipe_grab_irq and __ipipe_grab_ipi.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is that what you are referring to when you say "interrupt source is not
> >>>>>>>>>>>> connected to the pipile", that's what __ipipe_grab_xxx does isn't it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously I am still missing something.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If I use irq_set_chained_handler in the driver then the handler gets
> >>>>>>>>>>>> called but it's just replacing the handler_irq by the driver one.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> When I use request_irq then it does not call my handler (the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> action.handler one).
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I will keep looking.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> This is explained here:
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#GPIOs_as_interrupt_sources
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> and here:
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Chained handlers have to call ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq instead of
> >>>>>>>>>>> generic_handle_irq.
> >>>>>>>>>>> And the arch irq handler has to call ipipe_handle_multi_irq or
> >>>>>>>>>>> ipipe_handle_multi_ipi instead of handle_IRQ
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks Gilles for the pointers,
> >>>>>>>>>> MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER is not enabled for RPI2 (so I did not look at the
> >>>>>>>>>> multi_irq_handler section), is it a requirement for the ipipe patch to
> >>>>>>>>>> work?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> For GPIO I got it to work, but it is easier to me because they have
> >>>>>>>>>> their own irqchip.
> >>>>>>>>>> It is the arch irq handler that cause me trouble.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Maybe I just have to enable MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER.
> >>>>>>>>>> I will play around with it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for your feedback, it helps,
> >>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Also confirming that the ipipe_handler_multi_irq and
> >>>>>>>>> ipipe_handler_multi_ipi are called properly.
> >>>>>>>>> so it looks like the arch irq handler is working as expected.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> it is the handle_level_irq that is not called properly when I use the
> >>>>>>>>> request_irq in the driver.
> >>>>>>>>> the desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack is called properly but not the
> >>>>>>>>> irqaction->handler (that is the handler of my driver) that should have
> >>>>>>>>> been triggered by handle_level_irq.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So I think my problem is that handle_level_irq() is not called.
> >>>>>>>>> if I register my driver handler with irq_set_chained_handler then
> >>>>>>>>> ipipe_handler_multi_irq is still called, but the
> >>>>>>>>> desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack does not get called and my driver handle
> >>>>>>>>> gets called properly.
> >>>>>>>>> In this case, the ipipe is bypassed it seems since if I understand
> >>>>>>>>> correctly, the irq_ack is still expected to trigger.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Maybe I am missing a ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq call in an interrupt
> >>>>>>>>> handler that gets called before my driver interrupt handler gets a
> >>>>>>>>> chance to get called.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I have to look at what interrupt happens before mine.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> more info:
> >>>>>>>> 1) interrupt (lets say #I) triggers, the ipipe_dispatch_irq calls the
> >>>>>>>> irqchip->mask() which calls ipipe_lock_irq (IPIPE_LOCK_FLAG is now
> >>>>>>>> set).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> it should not call irqchip->mask, but irqchip->ipipe_ack, which
> >>>>>>> should not call ipipe_lock_irq. See for instance the documentation
> >>>>>>> about fasteoi irq:
> >>>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#flow_handler
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Gilles, thanks again for you response,
> >>>>>> the code (and execution path observed) does not seem to match with what
> >>>>>> you are saying (please don't take this the wrong way :)), please help
> >>>>>> clarifying. See explanation below:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     From the doc:
> >>>>>> "the irq_mask handler should call ipipe_lock_irq before accessing the
> >>>>>> interrupt controller registers"
> >>>>>> So I did put a ipipe_lock_irq in the irq_mask.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The documentation also says:
> >>>>> "If the flow handler is “handle_fasteoi_irq” the implementation of
> >>>>> the “struct irq_chip” members should be modified:"
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>     an irq_hold handler should be added (when CONFIG_IPIPE is enabled)
> >>>>>     having the same effect as the irq_mask handler (but without the
> >>>>>     call to ipipe_lock_irq), and the irq_eoi handler.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In which case the irq_hold handler is called upon handling the
> >>>>> interrupt.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You can not just apply half of what the documentation says and hope
> >>>>> to have a working system.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> But I don't use handle_fasteoi_irq, I use handle_level_irq.
> >>>
> >>> Exactly my point.
> >>>
> >>
> >> ok so you are saying, that for handle_level_irq, do not add the
> >> ipipe_lock_irq in the irq_mask?
> >> Can you confirm this?
> >> Does it mean for handle_level_irq, the irq_hold and irq_release are not
> >> needed as well.
> >> Ok this is the part I did not understood from the doc then. I think this
> >> could be clarified in the doc. (more clarification does not hurt).
> >
> > The doc looks clear enough to me. It says:
> >
> > if condition, then
> >     do 1
> >     do 2
> >     do 3
> >
> > if condition is not true, there is no reason to do 1, 2, or 3.
> >
> > perhaps you want me to add
> >
> > else
> >     do nothing
> > ?
> >
> > As a C programmer, do you put,
> >      else
> > 	;
> > To all your ifs with no else ?
> >
> 
> Maybe I was not expecting the doc to be structured in a coding language way.
> But that's ok, now I know it, the doc make sense :)

Well, I am sorry, I am unable to communicate in a language where the
(universal) rules of logic do not apply. I suspect very few people
can.

> 
> the doc focus on the handle_fasteoi_irq (and briefly handle_edge_irq), 
> there are other flow handler that could use some more porting details:
> 
> if (handle == handle_percpu_irq ||
> 	handle == handle_percpu_devid_irq) {
> 	if (irq_desc_get_chip(desc) &&
> 		irq_desc_get_chip(desc)->irq_hold) {
> 			desc->ipipe_ack = __ipipe_ack_fasteoi_irq;
> 			desc->ipipe_end = __ipipe_end_fasteoi_irq;
> 		} else {
> 			desc->ipipe_ack = __ipipe_ack_percpu_irq;
> 			desc->ipipe_end = __ipipe_nop_irq;
> 		}
> 
> In the RPI2 case, it needs to have two chipirq, one for the 
> handle_percpu_devid_irq and one for the handle_level_irq.
> 
> reading the doc, I have assumed (wrongly) that the handle_level_irq 
> could also be using the same chipirq than the handle_percpu_devid_irq 
> since the doc did not say otherwise.
> 
> For the RPI2, both handle_level_irq and handle_percpu_devid_irq are 
> using the same chipirq already so when I ported ipipe to it, nothing was 
> mentioned for handle_percpu_devid_irq which I learned by reading the 
> code (see copy past above).
> 
> So the part of the doc that says: "if the flow handler is 
> “handle_edge_irq”, and the systems locks up when the first interrupt 
> happens, try replacing “handle_edge_irq” with “handle_level_irq”.
> 
> could use some additional clarification as follow: "..., try replacing 
> “handle_edge_irq” with “handle_level_irq” since those should not have 
> any call to ipipe_lock_irq/ipipe_unlock_irq in their respective irqchip 
> handler irq_mask/irq_unmask".
> 
> Also, a mention to handle_percpu_devid_irq could be added as follow:
> "If the flow handler is “handle_fasteoi_irq”  or 
> "handle_percpu_devid_irq" or "handle_percpu_irq", the implementation of 
> the “struct irq_chip” members should be modified".

the struct irq_chip CAN be modified. The code posted above shows
that the I-pipe also supports the case where you do not implement
irq_hold/irq_release. If you implement them, you can put an
ipipe_lock/unlock in mask/unmask. If you don't, then you can't.

> 
> Just a suggestion.
> I just fell into a crack and I am proposing a change so that others 
> don't do the same mistake.
> 
> 
> >>
> >> Just to confirm, you were saying "it should not call irqchip->mask, but
> >> irqchip->ipipe_ack".
> >> But for handle_level_irq the mask and the ack are called.
> >> Is that correct?
> >
> > The answer is in the implementation of ipipe_ack for level
> > interrupts. It calls mask_ack_irq.
> >
> Correct, so it does call mask, but you said it does not earlier.

I meant that the mask callback is not called directly. The mask
callback being called directly would be the sign that the I-pipe
somehow does not do its work of interposing in the interruption
handling, which can happen during a port for a variety of reasons.

> 
> >>
> >> I think understand what my mistake was.
> >> I have not tested it yet but without the irq_lock, it should call the
> >> handler.
> >> Thank you Gilles again!
> >
> > You are welcome. I suggest however to take the time to read the
> > documentation completely from beginning to end, before jumping
> > head-on in the port, only reading parts of it, and wasting time
> > stupidly because you only read part of a sentence.
> >
> It was not a waste of time to me, I got the opportunity to look at the 
> internal of the ipipe code to understand what my problem was.
> I see this has a learning exercise (at spare time).
> 
> The code is well written.
> Writing a porting guide is difficult because it does not cover newer 
> targets implementation. The document could still evolve with user's 
> input. After all, I think the goal is to encourage users to create more 
> port.

Writing a porting guide is easy. Keeping it up to date is what's
hard. When that guide was first written, I had never ported the
I-pipe to any ARM board which used handle_percpu_devid_irq, I am not
even sure the kernel used it on any ARM platform.

Anyway, I am interested by your contribution, but as it is, I am
afraid you still misunderstood.

> 
> Side note: with two irqchip (one for handle_level_irq that does not 
> lock_irq in mask and the one for handle_percpu_devid_irq that does the 
> lock_irq in mask()) it does work.

You can probably have only one irqchip and not bother to insert the
calls to ipipe_lock/unlock_irq.

-- 
					    Gilles.
https://click-hack.org

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B

[Gilles Chanteperdrix]

On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 01:47:02PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> On 15-11-08 09:45 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:36:16AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >> On 15-11-08 09:26 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:20:47AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>> On 15-11-08 09:10 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:04:38AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>> On 15-11-08 12:42 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 09:55:48PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 15-11-04 10:08 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 15-11-04 04:51 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-03 11:04 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:18:37PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-02 07:15 AM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2015 06:23 AM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-01 07:21 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-01 06:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-10-31 08:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered when interrupt fires.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interrupt is happening.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe layer?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I might have answered my own question.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like I need to use ipipe_request_irq() instead.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mmmm it is not true, it seems we still need a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe_request_threaded_irq() to call the ackfn, put the handler in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> queue and wake up the thread once handler is executed. Or user
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to move this functionality into their driver's IRQ handler.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It strangely looks like ipipe_request_irq's idea is similar to what
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request_threaded_irq is already doing (delaying IRQ process later).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like my bigger problem is that the handler_level_irq is not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> called. Only the timer handler is called (handler_percpu_devid_irq).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Which may mean that the regular IRQ top half for that interrupt source
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> is not connected to the pipeline. You may want to check whether the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> irqchip handling that device's IRQs has been made aware of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> interrupt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for replying Philippe,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is the think, I did change the arch_irq_default_handler to call
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> __ipipe_grab_irq and __ipipe_grab_ipi.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is that what you are referring to when you say "interrupt source is not
> >>>>>>>>>>>> connected to the pipile", that's what __ipipe_grab_xxx does isn't it?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously I am still missing something.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> If I use irq_set_chained_handler in the driver then the handler gets
> >>>>>>>>>>>> called but it's just replacing the handler_irq by the driver one.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> When I use request_irq then it does not call my handler (the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> action.handler one).
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I will keep looking.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> This is explained here:
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#GPIOs_as_interrupt_sources
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> and here:
> >>>>>>>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Chained handlers have to call ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq instead of
> >>>>>>>>>>> generic_handle_irq.
> >>>>>>>>>>> And the arch irq handler has to call ipipe_handle_multi_irq or
> >>>>>>>>>>> ipipe_handle_multi_ipi instead of handle_IRQ
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks Gilles for the pointers,
> >>>>>>>>>> MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER is not enabled for RPI2 (so I did not look at the
> >>>>>>>>>> multi_irq_handler section), is it a requirement for the ipipe patch to
> >>>>>>>>>> work?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> For GPIO I got it to work, but it is easier to me because they have
> >>>>>>>>>> their own irqchip.
> >>>>>>>>>> It is the arch irq handler that cause me trouble.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Maybe I just have to enable MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER.
> >>>>>>>>>> I will play around with it.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for your feedback, it helps,
> >>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Also confirming that the ipipe_handler_multi_irq and
> >>>>>>>>> ipipe_handler_multi_ipi are called properly.
> >>>>>>>>> so it looks like the arch irq handler is working as expected.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> it is the handle_level_irq that is not called properly when I use the
> >>>>>>>>> request_irq in the driver.
> >>>>>>>>> the desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack is called properly but not the
> >>>>>>>>> irqaction->handler (that is the handler of my driver) that should have
> >>>>>>>>> been triggered by handle_level_irq.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> So I think my problem is that handle_level_irq() is not called.
> >>>>>>>>> if I register my driver handler with irq_set_chained_handler then
> >>>>>>>>> ipipe_handler_multi_irq is still called, but the
> >>>>>>>>> desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack does not get called and my driver handle
> >>>>>>>>> gets called properly.
> >>>>>>>>> In this case, the ipipe is bypassed it seems since if I understand
> >>>>>>>>> correctly, the irq_ack is still expected to trigger.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Maybe I am missing a ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq call in an interrupt
> >>>>>>>>> handler that gets called before my driver interrupt handler gets a
> >>>>>>>>> chance to get called.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I have to look at what interrupt happens before mine.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> more info:
> >>>>>>>> 1) interrupt (lets say #I) triggers, the ipipe_dispatch_irq calls the
> >>>>>>>> irqchip->mask() which calls ipipe_lock_irq (IPIPE_LOCK_FLAG is now
> >>>>>>>> set).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> it should not call irqchip->mask, but irqchip->ipipe_ack, which
> >>>>>>> should not call ipipe_lock_irq. See for instance the documentation
> >>>>>>> about fasteoi irq:
> >>>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#flow_handler
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Gilles, thanks again for you response,
> >>>>>> the code (and execution path observed) does not seem to match with what
> >>>>>> you are saying (please don't take this the wrong way :)), please help
> >>>>>> clarifying. See explanation below:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     From the doc:
> >>>>>> "the irq_mask handler should call ipipe_lock_irq before accessing the
> >>>>>> interrupt controller registers"
> >>>>>> So I did put a ipipe_lock_irq in the irq_mask.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The documentation also says:
> >>>>> "If the flow handler is “handle_fasteoi_irq” the implementation of
> >>>>> the “struct irq_chip” members should be modified:"
> >>>>> and
> >>>>>     an irq_hold handler should be added (when CONFIG_IPIPE is enabled)
> >>>>>     having the same effect as the irq_mask handler (but without the
> >>>>>     call to ipipe_lock_irq), and the irq_eoi handler.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In which case the irq_hold handler is called upon handling the
> >>>>> interrupt.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You can not just apply half of what the documentation says and hope
> >>>>> to have a working system.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> But I don't use handle_fasteoi_irq, I use handle_level_irq.
> >>>
> >>> Exactly my point.
> >>>
> >>
> >> ok so you are saying, that for handle_level_irq, do not add the
> >> ipipe_lock_irq in the irq_mask?
> >> Can you confirm this?
> >> Does it mean for handle_level_irq, the irq_hold and irq_release are not
> >> needed as well.
> >> Ok this is the part I did not understood from the doc then. I think this
> >> could be clarified in the doc. (more clarification does not hurt).
> >
> > The doc looks clear enough to me. It says:
> >
> > if condition, then
> >     do 1
> >     do 2
> >     do 3
> >
> > if condition is not true, there is no reason to do 1, 2, or 3.
> >
> > perhaps you want me to add
> >
> > else
> >     do nothing
> > ?
> >
> > As a C programmer, do you put,
> >      else
> > 	;
> > To all your ifs with no else ?
> >
> 
> Maybe I was not expecting the doc to be structured in a coding language way.
> But that's ok, now I know it, the doc make sense :)
> 
> the doc focus on the handle_fasteoi_irq (and briefly handle_edge_irq), 
> there are other flow handler that could use some more porting details:
> 
> if (handle == handle_percpu_irq ||
> 	handle == handle_percpu_devid_irq) {
> 	if (irq_desc_get_chip(desc) &&
> 		irq_desc_get_chip(desc)->irq_hold) {
> 			desc->ipipe_ack = __ipipe_ack_fasteoi_irq;
> 			desc->ipipe_end = __ipipe_end_fasteoi_irq;
> 		} else {
> 			desc->ipipe_ack = __ipipe_ack_percpu_irq;
> 			desc->ipipe_end = __ipipe_nop_irq;
> 		}

Ironically, the aim of that piece of code is to solve a problem not
unlike yours: when an irqchip is shared between irqs using
handle_fasteoi_irq and handle_percpu_irq (which I believe is
the case on some cortex A9), we want the I-pipe to use
irq_hold/irq_release, in order to avoid calling mask/unmask and
locking the interrupts.

But it works both way, handle_percpu_irq can also share an
irqchip with handle_level_irq and use the mask/unmask. You just have
to not put an ipipe_lock/unlock in mask/unmask.

The idea is that the only case where you need to modify mask/unmask
is with handle_fasteoi_irq. Other than that, don't touch anything,
and it should just work.

-- 
					    Gilles.
https://click-hack.org

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B

[Mathieu Rondonneau]

On 15-11-08 03:09 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 01:47:02PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>> On 15-11-08 09:45 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:36:16AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>> On 15-11-08 09:26 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:20:47AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>> On 15-11-08 09:10 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:04:38AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 15-11-08 12:42 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 09:55:48PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-04 10:08 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-04 04:51 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-03 11:04 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:18:37PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-02 07:15 AM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2015 06:23 AM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-01 07:21 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-01 06:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-10-31 08:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered when interrupt fires.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interrupt is happening.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe layer?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I might have answered my own question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like I need to use ipipe_request_irq() instead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mmmm it is not true, it seems we still need a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe_request_threaded_irq() to call the ackfn, put the handler in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> queue and wake up the thread once handler is executed. Or user
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to move this functionality into their driver's IRQ handler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It strangely looks like ipipe_request_irq's idea is similar to what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request_threaded_irq is already doing (delaying IRQ process later).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like my bigger problem is that the handler_level_irq is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called. Only the timer handler is called (handler_percpu_devid_irq).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which may mean that the regular IRQ top half for that interrupt source
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not connected to the pipeline. You may want to check whether the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irqchip handling that device's IRQs has been made aware of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interrupt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for replying Philippe,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the think, I did change the arch_irq_default_handler to call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> __ipipe_grab_irq and __ipipe_grab_ipi.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that what you are referring to when you say "interrupt source is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connected to the pipile", that's what __ipipe_grab_xxx does isn't it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously I am still missing something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I use irq_set_chained_handler in the driver then the handler gets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called but it's just replacing the handler_irq by the driver one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I use request_irq then it does not call my handler (the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> action.handler one).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will keep looking.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is explained here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#GPIOs_as_interrupt_sources
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chained handlers have to call ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic_handle_irq.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the arch irq handler has to call ipipe_handle_multi_irq or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe_handle_multi_ipi instead of handle_IRQ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Gilles for the pointers,
>>>>>>>>>>>> MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER is not enabled for RPI2 (so I did not look at the
>>>>>>>>>>>> multi_irq_handler section), is it a requirement for the ipipe patch to
>>>>>>>>>>>> work?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For GPIO I got it to work, but it is easier to me because they have
>>>>>>>>>>>> their own irqchip.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the arch irq handler that cause me trouble.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe I just have to enable MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I will play around with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for your feedback, it helps,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Also confirming that the ipipe_handler_multi_irq and
>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe_handler_multi_ipi are called properly.
>>>>>>>>>>> so it looks like the arch irq handler is working as expected.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> it is the handle_level_irq that is not called properly when I use the
>>>>>>>>>>> request_irq in the driver.
>>>>>>>>>>> the desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack is called properly but not the
>>>>>>>>>>> irqaction->handler (that is the handler of my driver) that should have
>>>>>>>>>>> been triggered by handle_level_irq.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So I think my problem is that handle_level_irq() is not called.
>>>>>>>>>>> if I register my driver handler with irq_set_chained_handler then
>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe_handler_multi_irq is still called, but the
>>>>>>>>>>> desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack does not get called and my driver handle
>>>>>>>>>>> gets called properly.
>>>>>>>>>>> In this case, the ipipe is bypassed it seems since if I understand
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly, the irq_ack is still expected to trigger.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe I am missing a ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq call in an interrupt
>>>>>>>>>>> handler that gets called before my driver interrupt handler gets a
>>>>>>>>>>> chance to get called.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have to look at what interrupt happens before mine.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> more info:
>>>>>>>>>> 1) interrupt (lets say #I) triggers, the ipipe_dispatch_irq calls the
>>>>>>>>>> irqchip->mask() which calls ipipe_lock_irq (IPIPE_LOCK_FLAG is now
>>>>>>>>>> set).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it should not call irqchip->mask, but irqchip->ipipe_ack, which
>>>>>>>>> should not call ipipe_lock_irq. See for instance the documentation
>>>>>>>>> about fasteoi irq:
>>>>>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#flow_handler
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gilles, thanks again for you response,
>>>>>>>> the code (and execution path observed) does not seem to match with what
>>>>>>>> you are saying (please don't take this the wrong way :)), please help
>>>>>>>> clarifying. See explanation below:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      From the doc:
>>>>>>>> "the irq_mask handler should call ipipe_lock_irq before accessing the
>>>>>>>> interrupt controller registers"
>>>>>>>> So I did put a ipipe_lock_irq in the irq_mask.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The documentation also says:
>>>>>>> "If the flow handler is “handle_fasteoi_irq” the implementation of
>>>>>>> the “struct irq_chip” members should be modified:"
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>      an irq_hold handler should be added (when CONFIG_IPIPE is enabled)
>>>>>>>      having the same effect as the irq_mask handler (but without the
>>>>>>>      call to ipipe_lock_irq), and the irq_eoi handler.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In which case the irq_hold handler is called upon handling the
>>>>>>> interrupt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can not just apply half of what the documentation says and hope
>>>>>>> to have a working system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I don't use handle_fasteoi_irq, I use handle_level_irq.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly my point.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ok so you are saying, that for handle_level_irq, do not add the
>>>> ipipe_lock_irq in the irq_mask?
>>>> Can you confirm this?
>>>> Does it mean for handle_level_irq, the irq_hold and irq_release are not
>>>> needed as well.
>>>> Ok this is the part I did not understood from the doc then. I think this
>>>> could be clarified in the doc. (more clarification does not hurt).
>>>
>>> The doc looks clear enough to me. It says:
>>>
>>> if condition, then
>>>      do 1
>>>      do 2
>>>      do 3
>>>
>>> if condition is not true, there is no reason to do 1, 2, or 3.
>>>
>>> perhaps you want me to add
>>>
>>> else
>>>      do nothing
>>> ?
>>>
>>> As a C programmer, do you put,
>>>       else
>>> 	;
>>> To all your ifs with no else ?
>>>
>>
>> Maybe I was not expecting the doc to be structured in a coding language way.
>> But that's ok, now I know it, the doc make sense :)
>
> Well, I am sorry, I am unable to communicate in a language where the
> (universal) rules of logic do not apply. I suspect very few people
> can.
>
I don't think it is about that.
What i am saying is the doc does not need to follow the coding structure.
I think what I take from it (and I tend to forget) is that the doc is 
for specific port and does not mean to be generic.
And like you said it is difficult to maintain such doc.

Maybe a solution would be to have one doc per target. For example, when 
people propose a port, get them to also produce a one page document to 
add on to your website.
This would create a database of port for different targets.
Users would be then able to browse the port document that matches his 
target as much as possible.

That way, the port's document will be simpler, and only focus on the 
target changes (one doc per port).

I think that could help.
The port's doc won't need to change unless fixes are added to that 
specific target's port.

>>
>> the doc focus on the handle_fasteoi_irq (and briefly handle_edge_irq),
>> there are other flow handler that could use some more porting details:
>>
>> if (handle == handle_percpu_irq ||
>> 	handle == handle_percpu_devid_irq) {
>> 	if (irq_desc_get_chip(desc) &&
>> 		irq_desc_get_chip(desc)->irq_hold) {
>> 			desc->ipipe_ack = __ipipe_ack_fasteoi_irq;
>> 			desc->ipipe_end = __ipipe_end_fasteoi_irq;
>> 		} else {
>> 			desc->ipipe_ack = __ipipe_ack_percpu_irq;
>> 			desc->ipipe_end = __ipipe_nop_irq;
>> 		}
>>
>> In the RPI2 case, it needs to have two chipirq, one for the
>> handle_percpu_devid_irq and one for the handle_level_irq.
>>
>> reading the doc, I have assumed (wrongly) that the handle_level_irq
>> could also be using the same chipirq than the handle_percpu_devid_irq
>> since the doc did not say otherwise.
>>
>> For the RPI2, both handle_level_irq and handle_percpu_devid_irq are
>> using the same chipirq already so when I ported ipipe to it, nothing was
>> mentioned for handle_percpu_devid_irq which I learned by reading the
>> code (see copy past above).
>>
>> So the part of the doc that says: "if the flow handler is
>> “handle_edge_irq”, and the systems locks up when the first interrupt
>> happens, try replacing “handle_edge_irq” with “handle_level_irq”.
>>
>> could use some additional clarification as follow: "..., try replacing
>> “handle_edge_irq” with “handle_level_irq” since those should not have
>> any call to ipipe_lock_irq/ipipe_unlock_irq in their respective irqchip
>> handler irq_mask/irq_unmask".
>>
>> Also, a mention to handle_percpu_devid_irq could be added as follow:
>> "If the flow handler is “handle_fasteoi_irq”  or
>> "handle_percpu_devid_irq" or "handle_percpu_irq", the implementation of
>> the “struct irq_chip” members should be modified".
>
> the struct irq_chip CAN be modified. The code posted above shows
> that the I-pipe also supports the case where you do not implement
> irq_hold/irq_release. If you implement them, you can put an
> ipipe_lock/unlock in mask/unmask. If you don't, then you can't.
>
I do have the hold implemented, I think that is why it works for the 
handle_percpu_devid_irq in my case.
But if I understand correctly, you are saying from your comment below, I 
could get away with only the mask that does not call the irq_hold.
That would simplify things, only one chipirq, no irq_hold.

So then, when does one need irq_hold?

>>
>> Just a suggestion.
>> I just fell into a crack and I am proposing a change so that others
>> don't do the same mistake.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Just to confirm, you were saying "it should not call irqchip->mask, but
>>>> irqchip->ipipe_ack".
>>>> But for handle_level_irq the mask and the ack are called.
>>>> Is that correct?
>>>
>>> The answer is in the implementation of ipipe_ack for level
>>> interrupts. It calls mask_ack_irq.
>>>
>> Correct, so it does call mask, but you said it does not earlier.
>
> I meant that the mask callback is not called directly. The mask
> callback being called directly would be the sign that the I-pipe
> somehow does not do its work of interposing in the interruption
> handling, which can happen during a port for a variety of reasons.
>
the "mask callback is not called directly" here you mean mask callback 
is not called but as part of __ipipe_dispatch_irq.
I think we are on the same page.

>>
>>>>
>>>> I think understand what my mistake was.
>>>> I have not tested it yet but without the irq_lock, it should call the
>>>> handler.
>>>> Thank you Gilles again!
>>>
>>> You are welcome. I suggest however to take the time to read the
>>> documentation completely from beginning to end, before jumping
>>> head-on in the port, only reading parts of it, and wasting time
>>> stupidly because you only read part of a sentence.
>>>
>> It was not a waste of time to me, I got the opportunity to look at the
>> internal of the ipipe code to understand what my problem was.
>> I see this has a learning exercise (at spare time).
>>
>> The code is well written.
>> Writing a porting guide is difficult because it does not cover newer
>> targets implementation. The document could still evolve with user's
>> input. After all, I think the goal is to encourage users to create more
>> port.
>
> Writing a porting guide is easy. Keeping it up to date is what's
> hard. When that guide was first written, I had never ported the
> I-pipe to any ARM board which used handle_percpu_devid_irq, I am not
> even sure the kernel used it on any ARM platform.
>
> Anyway, I am interested by your contribution, but as it is, I am
> afraid you still misunderstood.
>
Please explain one more time, I really would like to understand :)
I like what you guys are doing.
the RPI2 uses handle_percpu_devid_irq for the local 
timers/counters/IPI/videocore.

Once I get something working, I definitely will send you a patch for you 
guys to review.

>>
>> Side note: with two irqchip (one for handle_level_irq that does not
>> lock_irq in mask and the one for handle_percpu_devid_irq that does the
>> lock_irq in mask()) it does work.
>
> You can probably have only one irqchip and not bother to insert the
> calls to ipipe_lock/unlock_irq.

Ok, this is new peace of information, that would work too. But then, 
when one needs a lock_irq in mask and one does not?
(it is the same question as 2 comments above.

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B

[Mathieu Rondonneau]

On 15-11-08 03:22 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 01:47:02PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>> On 15-11-08 09:45 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:36:16AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>> On 15-11-08 09:26 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:20:47AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>> On 15-11-08 09:10 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:04:38AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 15-11-08 12:42 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 09:55:48PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-04 10:08 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-04 04:51 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-03 11:04 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:18:37PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-02 07:15 AM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2015 06:23 AM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-01 07:21 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-01 06:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-10-31 08:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered when interrupt fires.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interrupt is happening.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe layer?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think I might have answered my own question.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like I need to use ipipe_request_irq() instead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mmmm it is not true, it seems we still need a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe_request_threaded_irq() to call the ackfn, put the handler in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> queue and wake up the thread once handler is executed. Or user
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to move this functionality into their driver's IRQ handler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It strangely looks like ipipe_request_irq's idea is similar to what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> request_threaded_irq is already doing (delaying IRQ process later).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like my bigger problem is that the handler_level_irq is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called. Only the timer handler is called (handler_percpu_devid_irq).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which may mean that the regular IRQ top half for that interrupt source
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not connected to the pipeline. You may want to check whether the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irqchip handling that device's IRQs has been made aware of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interrupt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pipeline.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for replying Philippe,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the think, I did change the arch_irq_default_handler to call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> __ipipe_grab_irq and __ipipe_grab_ipi.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that what you are referring to when you say "interrupt source is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> connected to the pipile", that's what __ipipe_grab_xxx does isn't it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously I am still missing something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If I use irq_set_chained_handler in the driver then the handler gets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called but it's just replacing the handler_irq by the driver one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When I use request_irq then it does not call my handler (the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> action.handler one).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will keep looking.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is explained here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#GPIOs_as_interrupt_sources
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chained handlers have to call ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq instead of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> generic_handle_irq.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And the arch irq handler has to call ipipe_handle_multi_irq or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe_handle_multi_ipi instead of handle_IRQ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Gilles for the pointers,
>>>>>>>>>>>> MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER is not enabled for RPI2 (so I did not look at the
>>>>>>>>>>>> multi_irq_handler section), is it a requirement for the ipipe patch to
>>>>>>>>>>>> work?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> For GPIO I got it to work, but it is easier to me because they have
>>>>>>>>>>>> their own irqchip.
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the arch irq handler that cause me trouble.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe I just have to enable MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I will play around with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for your feedback, it helps,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Also confirming that the ipipe_handler_multi_irq and
>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe_handler_multi_ipi are called properly.
>>>>>>>>>>> so it looks like the arch irq handler is working as expected.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> it is the handle_level_irq that is not called properly when I use the
>>>>>>>>>>> request_irq in the driver.
>>>>>>>>>>> the desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack is called properly but not the
>>>>>>>>>>> irqaction->handler (that is the handler of my driver) that should have
>>>>>>>>>>> been triggered by handle_level_irq.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So I think my problem is that handle_level_irq() is not called.
>>>>>>>>>>> if I register my driver handler with irq_set_chained_handler then
>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe_handler_multi_irq is still called, but the
>>>>>>>>>>> desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack does not get called and my driver handle
>>>>>>>>>>> gets called properly.
>>>>>>>>>>> In this case, the ipipe is bypassed it seems since if I understand
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly, the irq_ack is still expected to trigger.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe I am missing a ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq call in an interrupt
>>>>>>>>>>> handler that gets called before my driver interrupt handler gets a
>>>>>>>>>>> chance to get called.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I have to look at what interrupt happens before mine.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> more info:
>>>>>>>>>> 1) interrupt (lets say #I) triggers, the ipipe_dispatch_irq calls the
>>>>>>>>>> irqchip->mask() which calls ipipe_lock_irq (IPIPE_LOCK_FLAG is now
>>>>>>>>>> set).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it should not call irqchip->mask, but irqchip->ipipe_ack, which
>>>>>>>>> should not call ipipe_lock_irq. See for instance the documentation
>>>>>>>>> about fasteoi irq:
>>>>>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#flow_handler
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Gilles, thanks again for you response,
>>>>>>>> the code (and execution path observed) does not seem to match with what
>>>>>>>> you are saying (please don't take this the wrong way :)), please help
>>>>>>>> clarifying. See explanation below:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>      From the doc:
>>>>>>>> "the irq_mask handler should call ipipe_lock_irq before accessing the
>>>>>>>> interrupt controller registers"
>>>>>>>> So I did put a ipipe_lock_irq in the irq_mask.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The documentation also says:
>>>>>>> "If the flow handler is “handle_fasteoi_irq” the implementation of
>>>>>>> the “struct irq_chip” members should be modified:"
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>      an irq_hold handler should be added (when CONFIG_IPIPE is enabled)
>>>>>>>      having the same effect as the irq_mask handler (but without the
>>>>>>>      call to ipipe_lock_irq), and the irq_eoi handler.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In which case the irq_hold handler is called upon handling the
>>>>>>> interrupt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can not just apply half of what the documentation says and hope
>>>>>>> to have a working system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I don't use handle_fasteoi_irq, I use handle_level_irq.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly my point.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ok so you are saying, that for handle_level_irq, do not add the
>>>> ipipe_lock_irq in the irq_mask?
>>>> Can you confirm this?
>>>> Does it mean for handle_level_irq, the irq_hold and irq_release are not
>>>> needed as well.
>>>> Ok this is the part I did not understood from the doc then. I think this
>>>> could be clarified in the doc. (more clarification does not hurt).
>>>
>>> The doc looks clear enough to me. It says:
>>>
>>> if condition, then
>>>      do 1
>>>      do 2
>>>      do 3
>>>
>>> if condition is not true, there is no reason to do 1, 2, or 3.
>>>
>>> perhaps you want me to add
>>>
>>> else
>>>      do nothing
>>> ?
>>>
>>> As a C programmer, do you put,
>>>       else
>>> 	;
>>> To all your ifs with no else ?
>>>
>>
>> Maybe I was not expecting the doc to be structured in a coding language way.
>> But that's ok, now I know it, the doc make sense :)
>>
>> the doc focus on the handle_fasteoi_irq (and briefly handle_edge_irq),
>> there are other flow handler that could use some more porting details:
>>
>> if (handle == handle_percpu_irq ||
>> 	handle == handle_percpu_devid_irq) {
>> 	if (irq_desc_get_chip(desc) &&
>> 		irq_desc_get_chip(desc)->irq_hold) {
>> 			desc->ipipe_ack = __ipipe_ack_fasteoi_irq;
>> 			desc->ipipe_end = __ipipe_end_fasteoi_irq;
>> 		} else {
>> 			desc->ipipe_ack = __ipipe_ack_percpu_irq;
>> 			desc->ipipe_end = __ipipe_nop_irq;
>> 		}
>
> Ironically, the aim of that piece of code is to solve a problem not
> unlike yours: when an irqchip is shared between irqs using
> handle_fasteoi_irq and handle_percpu_irq (which I believe is
> the case on some cortex A9), we want the I-pipe to use
> irq_hold/irq_release, in order to avoid calling mask/unmask and
> locking the interrupts.
>
> But it works both way, handle_percpu_irq can also share an
> irqchip with handle_level_irq and use the mask/unmask. You just have
> to not put an ipipe_lock/unlock in mask/unmask.
>
> The idea is that the only case where you need to modify mask/unmask
> is with handle_fasteoi_irq. Other than that, don't touch anything,
> and it should just work.
>

Hi Gilles,
Your reply summarizes it all, I would encourage you to add it to the doc.
Thanks again for all your patience and taking the time to reply.

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B

[Gilles Chanteperdrix]

On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 04:54:39PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> > Well, I am sorry, I am unable to communicate in a language where the
> > (universal) rules of logic do not apply. I suspect very few people
> > can.
> >
> I don't think it is about that.

It is exactly about that. The doc says "if the handler is
handle_fasteoi_irq, then add irq_hold and put an ipipe_lock in the
mask/unmask callbacks". Applying partially the "then" clause, when
the condition is false (when the handler is not handle_fasteoi_irq)
is an error of logic.

> What i am saying is the doc does not need to follow the coding structure.
> I think what I take from it (and I tend to forget) is that the doc is 
> for specific port and does not mean to be generic.

I have tried to make everything for the ARM architecture so that the
work of porting the I-pipe can be generic. So, having a
documentation that is not generic would be a failure.

> > Anyway, I am interested by your contribution, but as it is, I am
> > afraid you still misunderstood.
> >
> Please explain one more time, I really would like to understand :)
> I like what you guys are doing.
> the RPI2 uses handle_percpu_devid_irq for the local 
> timers/counters/IPI/videocore.
> 
> Once I get something working, I definitely will send you a patch for you 
> guys to review.

I was talking about your contribution to the documentation. But of
course, the contribution of the port would be welcome, but this goes
without saying, since the documentations says it:
http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#Publishing_your_modifications

> 
> >>
> >> Side note: with two irqchip (one for handle_level_irq that does not
> >> lock_irq in mask and the one for handle_percpu_devid_irq that does the
> >> lock_irq in mask()) it does work.
> >
> > You can probably have only one irqchip and not bother to insert the
> > calls to ipipe_lock/unlock_irq.
> 
> Ok, this is new peace of information, that would work too. But then, 
> when one needs a lock_irq in mask and one does not?
> (it is the same question as 2 comments above.

As the doc says, when the handler is handle_fasteoi_irq.

-- 
					    Gilles.
https://click-hack.org

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B

[Mathieu Rondonneau]

On 15-11-09 03:45 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 04:54:39PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>>> Well, I am sorry, I am unable to communicate in a language where the
>>> (universal) rules of logic do not apply. I suspect very few people
>>> can.
>>>
>> I don't think it is about that.
>
> It is exactly about that. The doc says "if the handler is
> handle_fasteoi_irq, then add irq_hold and put an ipipe_lock in the
> mask/unmask callbacks". Applying partially the "then" clause, when
> the condition is false (when the handler is not handle_fasteoi_irq)
> is an error of logic.
>

ok I give up, I won't mention the doc again.

>> What i am saying is the doc does not need to follow the coding structure.
>> I think what I take from it (and I tend to forget) is that the doc is
>> for specific port and does not mean to be generic.
>
> I have tried to make everything for the ARM architecture so that the
> work of porting the I-pipe can be generic. So, having a
> documentation that is not generic would be a failure.
>

Fine, it is your doc. I will stop suggesting changes. :)

>>> Anyway, I am interested by your contribution, but as it is, I am
>>> afraid you still misunderstood.
>>>
>> Please explain one more time, I really would like to understand :)
>> I like what you guys are doing.
>> the RPI2 uses handle_percpu_devid_irq for the local
>> timers/counters/IPI/videocore.
>>
>> Once I get something working, I definitely will send you a patch for you
>> guys to review.
>
> I was talking about your contribution to the documentation. But of
> course, the contribution of the port would be welcome, but this goes
> without saying, since the documentations says it:
> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#Publishing_your_modifications
>

the section does not talk about how to contribute to the doc.
that's ok, I will now stop suggesting doc update/changes. :)

>>
>>>>
>>>> Side note: with two irqchip (one for handle_level_irq that does not
>>>> lock_irq in mask and the one for handle_percpu_devid_irq that does the
>>>> lock_irq in mask()) it does work.
>>>
>>> You can probably have only one irqchip and not bother to insert the
>>> calls to ipipe_lock/unlock_irq.
>>
>> Ok, this is new peace of information, that would work too. But then,
>> when one needs a lock_irq in mask and one does not?
>> (it is the same question as 2 comments above.
>
> As the doc says, when the handler is handle_fasteoi_irq.
>

sure.

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B (devm_request_threaded_irq)

[Mathieu Rondonneau]

On 15-11-02 08:27 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 08:58:27PM -0700, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not get
>> triggered when interrupt fires.
>>
>> The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
>> Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
>> the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so the
>> interrupt is happening.
>>
>> Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by the
>> ipipe layer?
>
> Maybe have a look here:
> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/
>
Hi Gilles,

I read this guide a couple of time already in the past but it did not help.
But I think the section "flow handler" is where my problem resides since 
I get the callback to trigger properly.
I will continue staring at the code. I just don't have the big picture 
just yet.

Thanks,
-Mathieu

Re: [Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B (devm_request_threaded_irq)

[Gilles Chanteperdrix]

On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 08:58:27PM -0700, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not get 
> triggered when interrupt fires.
> 
> The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
> Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
> the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so the 
> interrupt is happening.
> 
> Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by the 
> ipipe layer?

Maybe have a look here:
http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/

-- 
					    Gilles.
https://click-hack.org

[Xenomai] Support for Raspberry PI 2 B (devm_request_threaded_irq)

[Mathieu Rondonneau]

Hi,

irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not get 
triggered when interrupt fires.

The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so the 
interrupt is happening.

Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by the 
ipipe layer?

Thanks,
-Mathieu