Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756299Ab3HWTw1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Aug 2013 15:52:27 -0400 Received: from avon.wwwdotorg.org ([70.85.31.133]:39289 "EHLO avon.wwwdotorg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755952Ab3HWTwZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Aug 2013 15:52:25 -0400 Message-ID: <5217BD74.5030801@wwwdotorg.org> Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 13:52:20 -0600 From: Stephen Warren User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Walleij CC: Tomasz Figa , Lars Poeschel , Lars Poeschel , Grant Likely , "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , Pawel Moll , Javier Martinez Canillas , Enric Balletbo i Serra , Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD , Santosh Shilimkar , Kevin Hilman , Balaji T K , Tony Lindgren , Jon Hunter Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: interrupt consistency check for OF GPIO IRQs References: <1377092334-770-1-git-send-email-larsi@wh2.tu-dresden.de> <1507189.CRWvzVJqTV@flatron> <521548E3.6010703@wwwdotorg.org> <52167E5D.6060802@wwwdotorg.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2311 Lines: 52 On 08/23/2013 12:45 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 08/21/2013 05:36 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> [Me] >>>>>> check if these in turn reference the interrupt-controller, and >>>>>> if they do, loop over the interrupts used by that child and >>>>>> perform gpio_request() and gpio_direction_input() on these, >>>>>> making them unreachable from the GPIO side. >>>> >>>> What about bindings that require a GPIO to be specified, yet don't allow >>>> an IRQ to be specified, and the driver internally does perform >>>> gpio_to_irq() on it? I don't think one can detect that case. >>> >>> This is still allowed. Consumers that prefer to have a GPIO >>> passed and convert it to IRQ by that call can still do so, >>> they will know what they're doing and will not cause the >>> double-command situation that we're trying to solve. >> >> Why not? There are certainly drivers in the kernel which request a GPIO >> as both a GPIO and as an (dual-edge) interrupt, so that they can read >> the GPIO input whenever the IRQ goes off, in order to determine the pin >> state. This is safer against high-latency or lost interrupts. > > Yes? Are we talking past each other here? > > This is a perfectly OK thing to do as long as it is done like > this: > > request_gpio(gpio); > gpio_direction_input(gpio); > request_irq(gpio_to_irq(gpio)); But I'm not aware that there's a rule saying it's illegal to: request_irq(gpio_to_irq(gpio)); request_gpio(gpio); gpio_direction_input(gpio); > Pass only the GPIO in the device tree and this works just fine. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were DTs that had separate GPIO and interrupt entries for the same pin. In fact, it's arguably technically more correct to do that than just list the GPIO, and then hope the OS will be able to convert it to the correct IRQ. Then, drivers wouldn't have any reason to believe they needed a specific IRQ-vs-GPIO request ordering. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/