Re: [PATCH v2 6/9] pinctrl: Add IRQ support to STM32 gpios

[Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>]

2016-04-29 10:53 GMT+02:00 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>:
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Maxime Coquelin
> <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2016-04-08 11:43 GMT+02:00 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>:
>>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Maxime Coquelin
>>> <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +static int stm32_gpio_to_irq(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       struct stm32_pinctrl *pctl = dev_get_drvdata(chip->parent);
>>>> +       struct stm32_gpio_bank *bank = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
>>>> +       unsigned int irq;
>>>> +
>>>> +       regmap_field_write(pctl->irqmux[offset], bank->range.id);
>>>
>>> No. You must implement the irqchip and GPIO controllers to
>>> be orthogonal, doing things like this creates a semantic that
>>> assumes .to_irq() is always called before using the IRQ and
>>> that is not guaranteed at all. A consumer may very well
>>> use an interrupt right off the irqchip without this being called
>>> first. All this function should do is translate a number. No
>>> other semantics.
>>>
>>> This needs to be done from the irqchip (sorry).
>>
>> Actually, the register written here is not part of the irqchip.
>> It is a system config register that is only used when using a GPIO as
>> external interrupt.
>> Its aim is to mux the GPIO bank on a line.
>
> Then it should be done in .request() for the GPIO, not in
> .to_irq().
Problem is that at request time, we don't know whether the GPIO is to
be used as an interrupt or not.

I think I may have not been clear enough in the HW architecture description.
Indeed, I used the term "mux", but should instead use the term "selector".

The idea is that between the GPIO controllers and the EXTI controller,
there is one selector for each line number, to select the controller used as
interrupt source.

For example, there is a selector on line 0 to select between gpioa0, gpiob0,
gpioc0,.., gpiok0, which one is connected to exti0.

It means there is a HW restriction that makes impossible to use both GPIOA0
or GPIOB0 as interrupts at the same time.

It looks like this: http://pastebin.com/raw/cs2WiNKZ
You can directly check section 12.2.5 of the stm32f429 reference manual:
http://www2.st.com/resource/en/reference_manual/dm00031020.pdf

For example, we can imagine a board where gpioa0 is used SD's card detect,
and gpiob0 used to control a led.

If we set the mux at request time, gpiob0 request may overwrite the mux
configuration set by gpioa0, whereas it is not used as interrupt.

That is the reason why I did it in .to_irq().

>
> It should *also* be done in the set-up path for the irqchip
> side, if that line is used without any interaction with the
> gpio side of things.
Actually, a line is either used by a GPIO, (exclusive) or another purpose.
In the case of a GPIO line, I think we should always go through the gpio.

>
>> For example on line 1, it can be muxed to select either gpioa1,
>> gpiob1, gpioc1, ...
>> How could I do it in the irqchip that has no gpio knowledge?
>
> I don't understand this.
>
> We are discussing an irqchip that is tightly coupled with
> a gpiochip. Usually d->hwirq is the same as the GPIO offset
> but that varies.
>
> The point is that each IRQ that ever get used
> has a 1-to-1 relationship to a certain GPIO line, and if that
> relationship cannot be resolved from the irqchip side,
> something is wrong. The irqchip needs to enable the
> GPIO line it is backing to recieve interrupts without any
> requirements that .to_irq() have been called first.

Actually, this is not a 1:1 relationship, as for example, exti0 can be connected
to either gpioa0, or gpiob0,..., or gpiok0.

So for the exti entries that are connected to gpios, I don't see how
we can reference it
from the exti controller,
>
> If to_irq() does something else than translate to an IRQ
> something is wrong.

Ok, so maybe we need an intermediate layer between gpio and exti to manage the
selectors sysconf?
I wiil have a look in that direction, but I think it could be over-engineered.

Thanks!
Maxime