From: list-09_linux_arm@tqsc.de (Markus Niebel)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [[RFC PATCH]] gpio: gpio-mxc: make sure gpio is input when request IRQ
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 09:19:22 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53CE107A.1000000@tqsc.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140722062803.GA21229@dragon>
Am 22.07.2014 08:28, wrote Shawn Guo:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 03:51:04PM +0200, Markus Niebel wrote:
>> From: Markus Niebel <Markus.Niebel@tq-group.com>
>>
>> When requesting an GPIO irq for imx Soc two things are missing:
>> - there is no check, if the GPIO is already requested
>> - there is no check, if the GPIO is configured as input
>>
>> The first case can lead to reconfiguring the GPIO pin from third
>> party while it is used as IRQ pin, second case will (eventually)
>> prevent IRQ from being seen by SOC becaus the pin is driven by
>> Soc
>>
>> This patch tries to implement (logic taken roughly from gpio-omap)
>> - basic check if gpio already requested
>> - if needed requests the gpio and configures as IN.
>> - if gpio is already requested it is only verified if pin is IN
>> - gpio is locked as irq
>>
>> Tested on a not mainlined i.MX6 based hardware with pin configured
>> by bootloader as OUT HIGH and expecting a low active IRQ.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Markus Niebel <Markus.Niebel@tq-group.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/gpio/gpio-mxc.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-mxc.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-mxc.c
>> index db83b3c..4316a38 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-mxc.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-mxc.c
>> @@ -175,6 +175,31 @@ static int gpio_set_irq_type(struct irq_data *d, u32 type)
>> u32 gpio = port->bgc.gc.base + gpio_idx;
>> int edge;
>> void __iomem *reg = port->base;
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> + if (!gpiochip_is_requested(&port->bgc.gc, gpio_idx)) {
>> + char label[32];
>> +
>> + snprintf(label, 32, "gpio%u-irq", gpio);
>> + ret = gpio_request_one(gpio, GPIOF_DIR_IN, label);
>
> I'm not sure it's correct to call gpio_request_one() from .set_irq_type
> hook. It looks like a API usage violation to me. It should really be
> called from client driver.
Thats why it is an RFC. I add Linus Walleij to the cc-list.
Let me describe the problem:
Currently client drivers have simply interrupts and interrupt-parent
in their bindings, but no interrupt-gpios. Therefore in this case a
client does not know about a dedicated gpio which is to be requested
and configured.
>
>> + } else {
>> + val = readl(port->base + GPIO_GDIR);
>> + if (val & BIT(gpio_idx))
>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>
> It says that the GPIO is requested by someone, but we're not really sure
> if it's the correct one, i.e. the one is requesting set_irq_type.
>
Yes, but the current situation is even worse (in my eyes): an IRQ can be requested and an
independend party can request and configure the gpio as output ...
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (ret) {
>> + dev_err(port->bgc.gc.dev, "unable to set gpio_idx %u as IN\n",
>> + gpio_idx);
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>
> Having said that, I'm not sure any above changes is really necessary.
> If any, I would say only gpiochip_is_requested() check makes some sense,
> but we should just fail out if the GPIO hasn't been requested. Nothing
> more can be done in there.
Going that way as a consequence a reworked device tree binding for gpio irq is needed
(just like in the platform data days) when providing a gpio number and the client has
to request gpio and irq - correct me if I'm wrong.
Maybe here is something needed with deeper knowledge in the gpio subsystem.
>
>> +
>> + ret = gpio_lock_as_irq(&port->bgc.gc, gpio_idx);
>> + if (ret) {
>> + dev_err(port->bgc.gc.dev, "unable to lock gpio_idx %u for IRQ\n",
>> + gpio_idx);
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>
> This and the following changes do make sense to me.
>
> Shawn
>
>>
>> port->both_edges &= ~(1 << gpio_idx);
>> switch (type) {
>> @@ -231,6 +256,15 @@ static int gpio_set_irq_type(struct irq_data *d, u32 type)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static void gpio_irq_shutdown(struct irq_data *d)
>> +{
>> + struct irq_chip_generic *gc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
>> + struct mxc_gpio_port *port = gc->private;
>> + u32 gpio_idx = d->hwirq;
>> +
>> + gpio_unlock_as_irq(&port->bgc.gc, gpio_idx);
>> +}
>> +
>> static void mxc_flip_edge(struct mxc_gpio_port *port, u32 gpio)
>> {
>> void __iomem *reg = port->base;
>> @@ -353,6 +387,7 @@ static void __init mxc_gpio_init_gc(struct mxc_gpio_port *port, int irq_base)
>> ct->chip.irq_mask = irq_gc_mask_clr_bit;
>> ct->chip.irq_unmask = irq_gc_mask_set_bit;
>> ct->chip.irq_set_type = gpio_set_irq_type;
>> + ct->chip.irq_shutdown = gpio_irq_shutdown;
>> ct->chip.irq_set_wake = gpio_set_wake_irq;
>> ct->regs.ack = GPIO_ISR;
>> ct->regs.mask = GPIO_IMR;
>> --
>> 1.7.9.5
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-07-22 7:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-07-16 13:51 [[RFC PATCH]] gpio: gpio-mxc: make sure gpio is input when request IRQ Markus Niebel
2014-07-22 6:28 ` Shawn Guo
2014-07-22 7:19 ` Markus Niebel [this message]
2014-07-22 7:42 ` Shawn Guo
2014-07-23 16:14 ` Linus Walleij
2014-07-24 8:12 ` Markus Niebel
2014-07-25 11:38 ` Linus Walleij
2014-07-25 12:52 ` Markus Niebel
2014-07-25 13:52 ` Linus Walleij
2014-07-23 16:10 ` Linus Walleij
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=53CE107A.1000000@tqsc.de \
--to=list-09_linux_arm@tqsc.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).