Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 13 Jul 2022 12:47:33 +0100 | From | Marc Zyngier <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: qcom: spmi-gpio: make the irqchip immutable |
| |
On 2022-07-13 12:08, Robert Marko wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 at 17:12, Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 12 Jul 2022 13:44:45 +0100, >> Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 11:42:32AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> > > On Fri, 24 Jun 2022 20:51:12 +0100, >> > > Robert Marko <robimarko@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > Commit 6c846d026d49 ("gpio: Don't fiddle with irqchips marked as >> > > > immutable") added a warning to indicate if the gpiolib is altering the >> > > > internals of irqchips. >> > > > >> > > > Following this change the following warning is now observed for the SPMI >> > > > PMIC pinctrl driver: >> > > > gpio gpiochip1: (200f000.spmi:pmic@0:gpio@c000): not an immutable chip, please consider fixing it! >> > > > >> > > > Fix this by making the irqchip in the SPMI PMIC pinctrl driver immutable. >> > > > >> > > > Signed-off-by: Robert Marko <robimarko@gmail.com> >> > > > --- >> > > > drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-spmi-gpio.c | 22 ++++++++++++---------- >> > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) >> > > > >> > > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-spmi-gpio.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-spmi-gpio.c >> > > > index c3255b0bece4..406ee0933d0b 100644 >> > > > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-spmi-gpio.c >> > > > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-spmi-gpio.c >> > > > @@ -171,7 +171,6 @@ struct pmic_gpio_state { >> > > > struct regmap *map; >> > > > struct pinctrl_dev *ctrl; >> > > > struct gpio_chip chip; >> > > > - struct irq_chip irq; >> > > > u8 usid; >> > > > u8 pid_base; >> > > > }; >> > > > @@ -988,6 +987,17 @@ static void *pmic_gpio_populate_parent_fwspec(struct gpio_chip *chip, >> > > > return fwspec; >> > > > } >> > > > >> > > > +static const struct irq_chip spmi_gpio_irq_chip = { >> > > > + .name = "spmi-gpio", >> > > > + .irq_ack = irq_chip_ack_parent, >> > > > + .irq_mask = irq_chip_mask_parent, >> > > > + .irq_unmask = irq_chip_unmask_parent, >> > > >> > > No, this is wrong. Please look at the documentation to see how you >> > > must now directly call into the gpiolib helpers for these two >> > > callbacks. >> > > >> > >> > IIUC, you are referring to gpiochip_disable_irq() and >> > gpiochip_enable_irq() APIs. >> >> I am indeed. >> >> > These APIs are supposed to let the gpiolib know about that the IRQ >> > usage of these GPIOs. But for the case of hierarchial IRQ domain, >> > isn't the parent is going to do that? >> >> Why would it? The parent has no clue about what sits above it. In a >> hierarchical configuration, each level is responsible for its own >> level, and the GPIO layer should be responsible for its own >> management. >> >> > Please correct me if I'm wrong. >> >> I'm afraid you are, and this patch is a fairly obvious change in >> behaviour, as the callbacks you mention above are not called anymore, >> while they were before. >> >> If they are not necessary (for reasons I can't fathom), then this >> should be clearly explained. > > Hi Marc, > I will look at IRQ GPIO docs, but in this case, then we have more > conversions that > are not correct.
Then please point them out.
M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
| |