| Message ID | 20210108093339.v5.2.I3635de080604e1feda770591c5563bd6e63dd39d@changeid |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v5,1/4] pinctrl: qcom: Allow SoCs to specify a GPIO function that's not 0 | expand |
Hi Doug, Reviewed-by: Maulik Shah <mkshah@codeaurora.org> Tested-by: Maulik Shah <mkshah@codeaurora.org> Thanks, Maulik On 1/8/2021 11:05 PM, Douglas Anderson wrote: > When the Qualcomm pinctrl driver wants to Ack an interrupt, it does a > read-modify-write on the interrupt status register. On some SoCs it > makes sure that the status bit is 1 to "Ack" and on others it makes > sure that the bit is 0 to "Ack". Presumably the first type of > interrupt controller is a "write 1 to clear" type register and the > second just let you directly set the interrupt status register. > > As far as I can tell from scanning structure definitions, the > interrupt status bit is always in a register by itself. Thus with > both types of interrupt controllers it is safe to "Ack" interrupts > without doing a read-modify-write. We can do a simple write. > > It should be noted that if the interrupt status bit _was_ ever in a > register with other things (like maybe status bits for other GPIOs): > a) For "write 1 clear" type controllers then read-modify-write would > be totally wrong because we'd accidentally end up clearing > interrupts we weren't looking at. > b) For "direct set" type controllers then read-modify-write would also > be wrong because someone setting one of the other bits in the > register might accidentally clear (or set) our interrupt. > I say this simply to show that the current read-modify-write doesn't > provide any sort of "future proofing" of the code. In fact (for > "write 1 clear" controllers) the new code is slightly more "future > proof" since it would allow more than one interrupt status bits to > share a register. > > NOTE: this code fixes no bugs--it simply avoids an extra register > read. > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > --- > > Changes in v5: > - ("pinctrl: qcom: No need to read-modify-write the ...") new for v5. > > drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c | 23 ++++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c > index 1d2a78452c2d..1787ada6bfab 100644 > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c > @@ -792,16 +792,13 @@ 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); > - } > + /* > + * clear the interrupt status bit before unmask to avoid > + * any erroneous interrupts that would have got latched > + * when the interrupt is not in use. > + */ > + if (status_clear) > + msm_writel_intr_status(0, pctrl, g); > > val = msm_readl_intr_cfg(pctrl, g); > val |= BIT(g->intr_raw_status_bit); > @@ -906,11 +903,7 @@ static void msm_gpio_irq_ack(struct irq_data *d) > > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pctrl->lock, flags); > > - val = msm_readl_intr_status(pctrl, g); > - if (g->intr_ack_high) > - val |= BIT(g->intr_status_bit); > - else > - val &= ~BIT(g->intr_status_bit); > + val = (g->intr_ack_high) ? BIT(g->intr_status_bit) : 0; > msm_writel_intr_status(val, pctrl, g); > > if (test_bit(d->hwirq, pctrl->dual_edge_irqs))
Quoting Douglas Anderson (2021-01-08 09:35:14) > When the Qualcomm pinctrl driver wants to Ack an interrupt, it does a > read-modify-write on the interrupt status register. On some SoCs it > makes sure that the status bit is 1 to "Ack" and on others it makes > sure that the bit is 0 to "Ack". Presumably the first type of > interrupt controller is a "write 1 to clear" type register and the > second just let you directly set the interrupt status register. > > As far as I can tell from scanning structure definitions, the > interrupt status bit is always in a register by itself. Thus with > both types of interrupt controllers it is safe to "Ack" interrupts > without doing a read-modify-write. We can do a simple write. > > It should be noted that if the interrupt status bit _was_ ever in a > register with other things (like maybe status bits for other GPIOs): > a) For "write 1 clear" type controllers then read-modify-write would > be totally wrong because we'd accidentally end up clearing > interrupts we weren't looking at. > b) For "direct set" type controllers then read-modify-write would also > be wrong because someone setting one of the other bits in the > register might accidentally clear (or set) our interrupt. > I say this simply to show that the current read-modify-write doesn't > provide any sort of "future proofing" of the code. In fact (for > "write 1 clear" controllers) the new code is slightly more "future > proof" since it would allow more than one interrupt status bits to > share a register. > > NOTE: this code fixes no bugs--it simply avoids an extra register > read. > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> > --- Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
On Fri 08 Jan 11:35 CST 2021, Douglas Anderson wrote: > When the Qualcomm pinctrl driver wants to Ack an interrupt, it does a > read-modify-write on the interrupt status register. On some SoCs it > makes sure that the status bit is 1 to "Ack" and on others it makes > sure that the bit is 0 to "Ack". Presumably the first type of > interrupt controller is a "write 1 to clear" type register and the > second just let you directly set the interrupt status register. > > As far as I can tell from scanning structure definitions, the > interrupt status bit is always in a register by itself. Thus with > both types of interrupt controllers it is safe to "Ack" interrupts > without doing a read-modify-write. We can do a simple write. > > It should be noted that if the interrupt status bit _was_ ever in a > register with other things (like maybe status bits for other GPIOs): > a) For "write 1 clear" type controllers then read-modify-write would > be totally wrong because we'd accidentally end up clearing > interrupts we weren't looking at. > b) For "direct set" type controllers then read-modify-write would also > be wrong because someone setting one of the other bits in the > register might accidentally clear (or set) our interrupt. > I say this simply to show that the current read-modify-write doesn't > provide any sort of "future proofing" of the code. In fact (for > "write 1 clear" controllers) the new code is slightly more "future > proof" since it would allow more than one interrupt status bits to > share a register. > > NOTE: this code fixes no bugs--it simply avoids an extra register > read. > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> Regards, Bjorn > --- > > Changes in v5: > - ("pinctrl: qcom: No need to read-modify-write the ...") new for v5. > > drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c | 23 ++++++++--------------- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c > index 1d2a78452c2d..1787ada6bfab 100644 > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c > @@ -792,16 +792,13 @@ 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); > - } > + /* > + * clear the interrupt status bit before unmask to avoid > + * any erroneous interrupts that would have got latched > + * when the interrupt is not in use. > + */ > + if (status_clear) > + msm_writel_intr_status(0, pctrl, g); > > val = msm_readl_intr_cfg(pctrl, g); > val |= BIT(g->intr_raw_status_bit); > @@ -906,11 +903,7 @@ static void msm_gpio_irq_ack(struct irq_data *d) > > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pctrl->lock, flags); > > - val = msm_readl_intr_status(pctrl, g); > - if (g->intr_ack_high) > - val |= BIT(g->intr_status_bit); > - else > - val &= ~BIT(g->intr_status_bit); > + val = (g->intr_ack_high) ? BIT(g->intr_status_bit) : 0; > msm_writel_intr_status(val, pctrl, g); > > if (test_bit(d->hwirq, pctrl->dual_edge_irqs)) > -- > 2.29.2.729.g45daf8777d-goog >
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c index 1d2a78452c2d..1787ada6bfab 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c @@ -792,16 +792,13 @@ 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); - } + /* + * clear the interrupt status bit before unmask to avoid + * any erroneous interrupts that would have got latched + * when the interrupt is not in use. + */ + if (status_clear) + msm_writel_intr_status(0, pctrl, g); val = msm_readl_intr_cfg(pctrl, g); val |= BIT(g->intr_raw_status_bit); @@ -906,11 +903,7 @@ static void msm_gpio_irq_ack(struct irq_data *d) raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pctrl->lock, flags); - val = msm_readl_intr_status(pctrl, g); - if (g->intr_ack_high) - val |= BIT(g->intr_status_bit); - else - val &= ~BIT(g->intr_status_bit); + val = (g->intr_ack_high) ? BIT(g->intr_status_bit) : 0; msm_writel_intr_status(val, pctrl, g); if (test_bit(d->hwirq, pctrl->dual_edge_irqs))
When the Qualcomm pinctrl driver wants to Ack an interrupt, it does a read-modify-write on the interrupt status register. On some SoCs it makes sure that the status bit is 1 to "Ack" and on others it makes sure that the bit is 0 to "Ack". Presumably the first type of interrupt controller is a "write 1 to clear" type register and the second just let you directly set the interrupt status register. As far as I can tell from scanning structure definitions, the interrupt status bit is always in a register by itself. Thus with both types of interrupt controllers it is safe to "Ack" interrupts without doing a read-modify-write. We can do a simple write. It should be noted that if the interrupt status bit _was_ ever in a register with other things (like maybe status bits for other GPIOs): a) For "write 1 clear" type controllers then read-modify-write would be totally wrong because we'd accidentally end up clearing interrupts we weren't looking at. b) For "direct set" type controllers then read-modify-write would also be wrong because someone setting one of the other bits in the register might accidentally clear (or set) our interrupt. I say this simply to show that the current read-modify-write doesn't provide any sort of "future proofing" of the code. In fact (for "write 1 clear" controllers) the new code is slightly more "future proof" since it would allow more than one interrupt status bits to share a register. NOTE: this code fixes no bugs--it simply avoids an extra register read. Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> --- Changes in v5: - ("pinctrl: qcom: No need to read-modify-write the ...") new for v5. drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c | 23 ++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)