Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] pinctrl: qcom: Don't clear pending interrupts when enabling

[Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>]

On 12/12/2020 3:45 AM, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> In Linux, if a driver does disable_irq() and later does enable_irq()
> on its interrupt, I believe it's expecting these properties:
> * If an interrupt was pending when the driver disabled then it will
>    still be pending after the driver re-enables.
> * If an edge-triggered interrupt comes in while an interrupt is
>    disabled it should assert when the interrupt is re-enabled.
> 
> If you think that the above sounds a lot like the disable_irq() and
> enable_irq() are supposed to be masking/unmasking the interrupt
> instead of disabling/enabling it then you've made an astute
> observation.  Specifically when talking about interrupts, "mask"
> usually means to stop posting interrupts but keep tracking them and
> "disable" means to fully shut off interrupt detection.  It's
> unfortunate that this is so confusing, but presumably this is all the
> way it is for historical reasons.
> 
> Perhaps more confusing than the above is that, even though clients of
> IRQs themselves don't have a way to request mask/unmask
> vs. disable/enable calls, IRQ chips themselves can implement both.
> ...and yet more confusing is that if an IRQ chip implements
> disable/enable then they will be called when a client driver calls
> disable_irq() / enable_irq().
> 
> It does feel like some of the above could be cleared up.  However,
> without any other core interrupt changes it should be clear that when
> an IRQ chip gets a request to "disable" an IRQ that it has to treat it
> like a mask of that IRQ.
> 
> In any case, after that long interlude you can see that the "unmask
> and clear" can break things.  Maulik tried to fix it so that we no
> longer did "unmask and clear" in commit 71266d9d3936 ("pinctrl: qcom:
> Move clearing pending IRQ to .irq_request_resources callback"), but it
> only handled the PDC case (it also had problems, but that's the
> subject of another patch).  Let's fix this for the non-PDC case.
> 
>  From my understanding the source of the phantom interrupt in the
> non-PDC case was the one that could have been introduced in
> msm_gpio_irq_set_type().  Let's handle that one and then get rid of
> the clear.
> 
> Fixes: 4b7618fdc7e6 ("pinctrl: qcom: Add irq_enable callback for msm gpio")
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> ---
> I don't have lots of good test cases here, so hopefully someone from
> Qualcomm can confirm that this works well for them and there isn't
> some other phantom interrupt source that I'm not aware of.

I currently don;t have access to any non-PDC hardware, so could not really do
any real tests, but the changes seem sane, so

Reviewed-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>

> 
> Changes in v4:
> - ("pinctrl: qcom: Don't clear pending interrupts when enabling") split for v4.
> 
>   drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c | 32 +++++++++++++-----------------
>   1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c
> index 588df91274e2..f785646d1df7 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c
> @@ -774,7 +774,7 @@ static void msm_gpio_irq_mask(struct irq_data *d)
>   	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pctrl->lock, flags);
>   }
>   
> -static void msm_gpio_irq_clear_unmask(struct irq_data *d, bool status_clear)
> +static void msm_gpio_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *d)
>   {
>   	struct gpio_chip *gc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
>   	struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl = gpiochip_get_data(gc);
> @@ -792,17 +792,6 @@ static void msm_gpio_irq_clear_unmask(struct irq_data *d, bool status_clear)
>   
>   	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pctrl->lock, flags);
>   
> -	if (status_clear) {
> -		/*
> -		 * clear the interrupt status bit before unmask to avoid
> -		 * any erroneous interrupts that would have got latched
> -		 * when the interrupt is not in use.
> -		 */
> -		val = msm_readl_intr_status(pctrl, g);
> -		val &= ~BIT(g->intr_status_bit);
> -		msm_writel_intr_status(val, pctrl, g);
> -	}
> -
>   	val = msm_readl_intr_cfg(pctrl, g);
>   	val |= BIT(g->intr_raw_status_bit);
>   	val |= BIT(g->intr_enable_bit);
> @@ -822,7 +811,7 @@ static void msm_gpio_irq_enable(struct irq_data *d)
>   		irq_chip_enable_parent(d);
>   
>   	if (!test_bit(d->hwirq, pctrl->skip_wake_irqs))
> -		msm_gpio_irq_clear_unmask(d, true);
> +		msm_gpio_irq_unmask(d);
>   }
>   
>   static void msm_gpio_irq_disable(struct irq_data *d)
> @@ -837,11 +826,6 @@ static void msm_gpio_irq_disable(struct irq_data *d)
>   		msm_gpio_irq_mask(d);
>   }
>   
> -static void msm_gpio_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *d)
> -{
> -	msm_gpio_irq_clear_unmask(d, false);
> -}
> -
>   /**
>    * msm_gpio_update_dual_edge_parent() - Prime next edge for IRQs handled by parent.
>    * @d: The irq dta.
> @@ -936,6 +920,7 @@ static int msm_gpio_irq_set_type(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int type)
>   	struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl = gpiochip_get_data(gc);
>   	const struct msm_pingroup *g;
>   	unsigned long flags;
> +	bool was_enabled;
>   	u32 val;
>   
>   	if (msm_gpio_needs_dual_edge_parent_workaround(d, type)) {
> @@ -997,6 +982,7 @@ static int msm_gpio_irq_set_type(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int type)
>   	 * could cause the INTR_STATUS to be set for EDGE interrupts.
>   	 */
>   	val = msm_readl_intr_cfg(pctrl, g);
> +	was_enabled = val & BIT(g->intr_raw_status_bit);
>   	val |= BIT(g->intr_raw_status_bit);
>   	if (g->intr_detection_width == 2) {
>   		val &= ~(3 << g->intr_detection_bit);
> @@ -1046,6 +1032,16 @@ static int msm_gpio_irq_set_type(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int type)
>   	}
>   	msm_writel_intr_cfg(val, pctrl, g);
>   
> +	/*
> +	 * The first time we set RAW_STATUS_EN it could trigger an interrupt.
> +	 * Clear it.  This is safe because we have IRQCHIP_SET_TYPE_MASKED.
> +	 */
> +	if (!was_enabled) {
> +		val = msm_readl_intr_status(pctrl, g);
> +		val &= ~BIT(g->intr_status_bit);
> +		msm_writel_intr_status(val, pctrl, g);
> +	}
> +
>   	if (test_bit(d->hwirq, pctrl->dual_edge_irqs))
>   		msm_gpio_update_dual_edge_pos(pctrl, g, d);
>   
> 

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation