Re: [PATCH v2 05/10] gpio: dwapb: Convert driver to using the GPIO-lib-based IRQ-chip

[Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>]

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 04:55:31PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> GPIO-lib provides a ready-to-use interface to initialize an IRQ-chip on
> top of a GPIO chip. It's better from maintainability and readability
> point of view to use one instead of supporting a hand-written Generic
> IRQ-chip-based implementation. Moreover the new implementation won't
> cause much functional overhead but will provide a cleaner driver code.
> All of that makes the DW APB GPIO driver conversion pretty much justified
> especially seeing a tendency of the other GPIO drivers getting converted
> too.
> 
> Here is what we do in the framework of this commit to convert the driver
> to using the GPIO-lib-based IRQ-chip interface:
> 1) IRQ ack, mask and unmask callbacks are locally defined instead of
> using the Generic IRQ-chip ones.

Easy to read if you put blank lines in between of items.

> 2) An irq_chip structure instance is embedded into the dwapb_gpio
> private data. Note we can't have a static instance of that structure since
> GPIO-lib will add some hooks into it by calling gpiochip_set_irq_hooks().
> A warning about that would have been printed by the GPIO-lib code if we
> used a single irq_chip structure instance for multiple DW APB GPIO
> controllers.
> 3) Initialize the gpio_irq_chip structure embedded into the gpio_chip
> descriptor. By default there is no IRQ enabled so any event raised will be
> handled by the handle_bad_irq() IRQ flow handler. If DW APB GPIO IP-core
> is synthesized to have non-shared reference IRQ-lines, then as before the
> hierarchical and cascaded cases are distinguished by checking how many
> parental IRQs are defined. (Note irq_set_chained_handler_and_data() won't
> initialize IRQs, which descriptors couldn't be found.) If DW APB GPIO IP
> is used on a platform with shared IRQ line, then we simply won't let the
> GPIO-lib to initialize the parental IRQs, but will handle them locally in
> the driver.
> 4) Discard linear IRQ-domain and Generic IRQ-chip initialization, since
> GPIO-lib IRQ-chip interface will create a new domain and accept a standard
> IRQ-chip structure pointer based on the setting we provided in the
> gpio_irq_chip structure.
> 5) Manually select a proper IRQ flow handler directly in the
> irq_set_type() callback by calling irq_set_handler_locked() method, since
> an ordinary (not Generic) irq_chip descriptor is now utilized. Note this
> shalln't give any regression
> 6) Alter CONFIG_GPIO_DWAPB kernel config to select
> CONFIG_GPIOLIB_IRQCHIP instead of CONFIG_GENERIC_IRQ_CHIP.
> 
> Note neither 4) nor 5) shall cause a regression of commit 6a2f4b7dadd5
> ("gpio: dwapb: use a second irq chip"), since the later isn't properly
> used here anyway.

...

>  struct dwapb_gpio_port {
>  	struct gpio_chip	gc;
> +	unsigned int		nr_irqs;
> +	unsigned int		irq[DWAPB_MAX_GPIOS];
> +	struct irq_chip		irqchip;
>  	bool			is_registered;
>  	struct dwapb_gpio	*gpio;

Isn't it too much wasted memory (imagine 4 port controller)?

What if we have it in another structure and allocate dynamically?

struct dwapb_gpio_port_irqchip {
	struct irq_chip		irqchip;
	unsigned int		nr_irqs;
	unsigned int		irq[DWAPB_MAX_GPIOS];
};

	...
	struct dwapb_gpio_port_irqchip *pirq;
	...

(I agree that IRQ chip is rather property of a port than controller)

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko