| Message ID | 20230214073638.571417-1-alexander.stein@ew.tq-group.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [1/1] gpio: vf610: make irq_chip immutable | expand |
On Wed, 15 Feb 2023 10:19:28 +0000, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 8:36 AM Alexander Stein > <alexander.stein@ew.tq-group.com> wrote: > > > Since recently, the kernel is nagging about mutable irq_chips: > > > > "not an immutable chip, please consider fixing it!" > > > > Drop the unneeded copy, flag it as IRQCHIP_IMMUTABLE, add the new > > helper functions and call the appropriate gpiolib functions. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@ew.tq-group.com> > > Looks good to me, CC to Marc Z. Looks wrong to me. This is missing the explicit callbacks into gpiolib so that it knows what gets enabled/disabled on mask/unmask. > > Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> > > We fixed quite a few of these now, Marc do you have an idea about > how much we have left until we can make immutable the default? I haven't tracked that, and making it the default would probably mean getting rid of the code that patches the irqchip structures. I'd say that once -rc1 is out, we replace the polite nag with something nastier (WARN_ON() of some sort), and push that into -next. Leave the warning in place for a couple of releases (until the next LTS), and then drop the patching code. The not-so-nice part is that that drivers that haven't been fixed will break silently. The good side is that these drivers will not have been touched over 2 LTS releases, and are thus most likely abandonware. Thanks, M.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 12:16 PM Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote: > > We fixed quite a few of these now, Marc do you have an idea about > > how much we have left until we can make immutable the default? > > I haven't tracked that, and making it the default would probably mean > getting rid of the code that patches the irqchip structures. I'd say > that once -rc1 is out, we replace the polite nag with something > nastier (WARN_ON() of some sort), and push that into -next. > > Leave the warning in place for a couple of releases (until the next > LTS), and then drop the patching code. The not-so-nice part is that > that drivers that haven't been fixed will break silently. The good > side is that these drivers will not have been touched over 2 LTS > releases, and are thus most likely abandonware. Hmmm I will take a round and fix some more that are simple and obvious, I know some that are definitely used but just sees low attention from users. Yours, Linus Walleij
On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 12:18 PM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:52 AM <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote: > > Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 08:36:38AM +0100, Alexander Stein kirjoitti: > > > Since recently, the kernel is nagging about mutable irq_chips: > > > > > > "not an immutable chip, please consider fixing it!" > > > > > > Drop the unneeded copy, flag it as IRQCHIP_IMMUTABLE, add the new > > > helper functions and call the appropriate gpiolib functions. > > > > ... > > > > > The overall changes are based on commit f1138dacb7ff > > > ("gpio: sch: make irq_chip immutable") > > > > Nice, but you forgot one crucial detail. You need to mark GPIO resuested > > whenever it's locked as IRQ and otherwise when unlocked. > > +static const struct irq_chip vf610_irqchip = { > (...) > + GPIOCHIP_IRQ_RESOURCE_HELPERS, > > That's what this macro does ;) Maybe I was unclear, but I meant that the above mentioned macro requires to have the helpers to be called to enable the GPIO line.
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c index a429176673e7..e63ca8c85bec 100644 --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c @@ -30,7 +30,6 @@ struct fsl_gpio_soc_data { struct vf610_gpio_port { struct gpio_chip gc; - struct irq_chip ic; void __iomem *base; void __iomem *gpio_base; const struct fsl_gpio_soc_data *sdata; @@ -237,6 +236,17 @@ static int vf610_gpio_irq_set_wake(struct irq_data *d, u32 enable) return 0; } +static const struct irq_chip vf610_irqchip = { + .name = "gpio-vf610", + .irq_ack = vf610_gpio_irq_ack, + .irq_mask = vf610_gpio_irq_mask, + .irq_unmask = vf610_gpio_irq_unmask, + .irq_set_type = vf610_gpio_irq_set_type, + .irq_set_wake = vf610_gpio_irq_set_wake, + .flags = IRQCHIP_IMMUTABLE, + GPIOCHIP_IRQ_RESOURCE_HELPERS, +}; + static void vf610_gpio_disable_clk(void *data) { clk_disable_unprepare(data); @@ -249,7 +259,6 @@ static int vf610_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) struct vf610_gpio_port *port; struct gpio_chip *gc; struct gpio_irq_chip *girq; - struct irq_chip *ic; int i; int ret; @@ -315,14 +324,6 @@ static int vf610_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) gc->direction_output = vf610_gpio_direction_output; gc->set = vf610_gpio_set; - ic = &port->ic; - ic->name = "gpio-vf610"; - ic->irq_ack = vf610_gpio_irq_ack; - ic->irq_mask = vf610_gpio_irq_mask; - ic->irq_unmask = vf610_gpio_irq_unmask; - ic->irq_set_type = vf610_gpio_irq_set_type; - ic->irq_set_wake = vf610_gpio_irq_set_wake; - /* Mask all GPIO interrupts */ for (i = 0; i < gc->ngpio; i++) vf610_gpio_writel(0, port->base + PORT_PCR(i)); @@ -331,7 +332,7 @@ static int vf610_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) vf610_gpio_writel(~0, port->base + PORT_ISFR); girq = &gc->irq; - girq->chip = ic; + gpio_irq_chip_set_chip(girq, &vf610_irqchip); girq->parent_handler = vf610_gpio_irq_handler; girq->num_parents = 1; girq->parents = devm_kcalloc(&pdev->dev, 1,
Since recently, the kernel is nagging about mutable irq_chips: "not an immutable chip, please consider fixing it!" Drop the unneeded copy, flag it as IRQCHIP_IMMUTABLE, add the new helper functions and call the appropriate gpiolib functions. Signed-off-by: Alexander Stein <alexander.stein@ew.tq-group.com> --- The overall changes are based on commit f1138dacb7ff ("gpio: sch: make irq_chip immutable") drivers/gpio/gpio-vf610.c | 23 ++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)