From: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>
To: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Cc: "Nava kishore Manne" <navam@xilinx.com>,
"Josh Cartwright" <josh.cartwright@ni.com>,
"monstr@monstr.eu" <monstr@monstr.eu>,
"Peter Crosthwaite" <peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com>,
"Borsodi Petr" <Petr.Borsodi@i.cz>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
"Rob Herring" <robherring2@gmail.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
"Steffen Trumtrar" <s.trumtrar@pengutronix.de>,
"Sören Brinkmann" <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com>,
"Shubhrajyoti Datta" <shubhraj@xilinx.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] gpio: zynq: Wakeup gpio controller when it is used as IRQ controller
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 16:42:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190107164210.3ecf37e8@windsurf> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6da5fd79-fbc8-b613-954f-dcbe2ef8d6c5@xilinx.com>
Hello,
I am reviving this old thread, because the proposed patch (almost)
solves the problem I recently reported with the bad interaction of
runtime PM with the Zynq GPIO driver (see
https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-gpio/msg35437.html).
On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 16:33:09 +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> index 9568708a550b..a08a044fa4aa 100644
> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
> @@ -1647,14 +1647,22 @@ static void gpiochip_irq_unmap(struct irq_domain
> *d, unsigned int irq)
> static int gpiochip_irq_reqres(struct irq_data *d)
> {
> struct gpio_chip *chip = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
> + int ret;
>
> if (!try_module_get(chip->gpiodev->owner))
> return -ENODEV;
>
> + ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->parent);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + module_put(chip->gpiodev->owner);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> if (gpiochip_lock_as_irq(chip, d->hwirq)) {
> chip_err(chip,
> "unable to lock HW IRQ %lu for IRQ\n",
> d->hwirq);
> + pm_runtime_put(chip->parent);
> module_put(chip->gpiodev->owner);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> @@ -1666,6 +1674,7 @@ static void gpiochip_irq_relres(struct irq_data *d)
> struct gpio_chip *chip = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
>
> gpiochip_unlock_as_irq(chip, d->hwirq);
> + pm_runtime_put(chip->parent);
> module_put(chip->gpiodev->owner);
> }
This patch almost solves the problem. It doesn't work as-is, because it
assumes that runtime PM is used by all GPIO controllers, which is not
the case. When runtime PM is not enabled, pm_runtime_get_sync() fails
with -EACCES, and the whole gpiochip_irq_reqres() function aborts.
The following patch works fine in my case (a MMC card detect signal is
connected to a pin of a PCA GPIO expander over I2C, whose INT# pin is
itself connected to a GPIO pin of the Zynq SoC).
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
index 20887c62fbb3..bd9a81fc8d56 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
#include <linux/kfifo.h>
#include <linux/poll.h>
#include <linux/timekeeping.h>
+#include <linux/pm_runtime.h>
#include <uapi/linux/gpio.h>
#include "gpiolib.h"
@@ -3540,12 +3541,23 @@ int gpiochip_reqres_irq(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset)
if (!try_module_get(chip->gpiodev->owner))
return -ENODEV;
+ if (pm_runtime_enabled(chip->parent)) {
+ ret = pm_runtime_get_sync(chip->parent);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ module_put(chip->gpiodev->owner);
+ return ret;
+ }
+ }
+
ret = gpiochip_lock_as_irq(chip, offset);
if (ret) {
chip_err(chip, "unable to lock HW IRQ %u for IRQ\n", offset);
+ if (pm_runtime_enabled(chip->parent))
+ pm_runtime_put(chip->parent);
module_put(chip->gpiodev->owner);
return ret;
}
+
return 0;
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gpiochip_reqres_irq);
@@ -3553,6 +3565,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gpiochip_reqres_irq);
void gpiochip_relres_irq(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned int offset)
{
gpiochip_unlock_as_irq(chip, offset);
+ if (pm_runtime_enabled(chip->parent))
+ pm_runtime_put(chip->parent);
module_put(chip->gpiodev->owner);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(gpiochip_relres_irq);
However, I must say that from a design perspective, I am not a big fan
of this solution. Indeed for the normal GPIO ->request() and ->free()
hooks, it is currently the GPIO driver itself that is responsible for
runtime PM get/put, so it would be weird to have the runtime PM get/put
for the IRQ request/free be done by the GPIO core.
I believe that either the GPIO core should be in charge of the entire
runtime PM interaction, or it should entirely be the responsibility of
each GPIO controller driver. Having a mixed solution seems very
confusing.
Let me know which direction should be taken so that I can submit a
proper patch to hopefully resolve this issue.
Best regards,
Thomas
--
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-01-07 15:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-07 11:01 [PATCH 0/8] Zynq GPIO driver changes Michal Simek
2017-08-07 11:01 ` [PATCH 1/8] gpio: zynq: Add support for suspend resume Michal Simek
2017-08-14 13:44 ` Linus Walleij
2017-08-07 11:01 ` [PATCH 2/8] gpio: zynq: Wakeup gpio controller when it is used as IRQ controller Michal Simek
2017-08-14 13:53 ` Linus Walleij
2017-08-14 14:33 ` Michal Simek
2017-08-22 12:57 ` Linus Walleij
2019-01-07 15:42 ` Thomas Petazzoni [this message]
2019-01-08 13:21 ` Michal Simek
2019-01-11 9:54 ` Linus Walleij
2019-01-11 12:54 ` Thomas Petazzoni
2019-01-11 14:37 ` Linus Walleij
2019-01-21 6:11 ` Shubhrajyoti Datta
2017-08-07 11:01 ` [PATCH 3/8] gpio: zynq: Shift zynq_gpio_init() to subsys_initcall level Michal Simek
2017-08-14 13:55 ` Linus Walleij
2017-08-14 14:15 ` Michal Simek
2017-08-22 13:02 ` Linus Walleij
2017-08-07 11:01 ` [PATCH 4/8] gpio: zynq: Provided workaround for GPIO Michal Simek
2017-08-14 13:57 ` Linus Walleij
2017-08-14 14:01 ` Michal Simek
2017-08-07 11:01 ` [PATCH 5/8] gpio: zynq: Fix kernel doc warnings Michal Simek
2017-08-14 13:58 ` Linus Walleij
2017-08-07 11:01 ` [PATCH 6/8] gpio: zynq: Fix empty lines in driver Michal Simek
2017-08-14 13:59 ` Linus Walleij
2017-08-07 11:02 ` [PATCH 7/8] gpio: zynq: Fix warnings in the driver Michal Simek
2017-08-14 14:00 ` Linus Walleij
2017-08-07 11:02 ` [PATCH 8/8] gpio: zynq: Fix driver function parameters alignment Michal Simek
2017-08-14 14:01 ` Linus Walleij
2017-08-14 14:03 ` Michal Simek
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=20190107164210.3ecf37e8@windsurf \
--to=thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com \
--cc=Petr.Borsodi@i.cz \
--cc=josh.cartwright@ni.com \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=michal.simek@xilinx.com \
--cc=monstr@monstr.eu \
--cc=navam@xilinx.com \
--cc=peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com \
--cc=robherring2@gmail.com \
--cc=s.trumtrar@pengutronix.de \
--cc=shubhraj@xilinx.com \
--cc=soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com \
/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).