Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20201203191135.21576-1-info@metux.net> <20201203191135.21576-2-info@metux.net>
 <0080d492-2f07-d1c6-d18c-73d4204a5d40@metux.net> <CACRpkdb4R4yHcUV2KbGEC_RkU+QmH6Xg7X+qee8sEa9TURGr8A@mail.gmail.com>
 <51d3efb7-b7eb-83d7-673a-308dd51616d3@metux.net> <CACRpkdbqVoT56H88hoZwDqV0kW_8XTaE5TkMQsg-RRrPqgF=cQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAK8P3a1PRQGUXkjdSmqxXSONX_ZoCgsfx8hJBUdBUk14tyzErA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a1PRQGUXkjdSmqxXSONX_ZoCgsfx8hJBUdBUk14tyzErA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 9 Dec 2020 13:53:15 +0100
Message-ID: <CACRpkdbNAeDsi9B14kbkAeoqX7NE_Ua_yOX1iNF75oNK0ELefQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Howto listen to/handle gpio state changes ? Re: [PATCH v2 2/2]
 drivers: gpio: add virtio-gpio guest driver
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Cc:     "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@metux.net>,
        "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
        Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Linux Doc Mailing List <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <info@metux.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 12:19 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 9:51 AM Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 8, 2020 at 3:07 PM Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult <lkml@metux.net> wrote:
>
> > What we need to understand is if your new usecase is an outlier
> > so it is simplest modeled by a "mock" irq_chip or we have to design
> > something new altogether like notifications on changes. I suspect
> > irq_chip would be best because all drivers using GPIOs for interrupts
> > are expecting interrupts, and it would be an enormous task to
> > change them all and really annoying to create a new mechanism
> > on the side.
>
> I would expect the platform abstraction to actually be close enough
> to a chained irqchip that it actually works: the notification should
> come in via vring_interrupt(), which is a normal interrupt handler
> that calls vq->vq.callback(), calling generic_handle_irq() (and
> possibly chained_irq_enter()/chained_irq_exit() around it) like the
> other gpio drivers do should just work here I think, and if it did
> not, then I would expect this to be just a bug in the driver rather
> than something missing in the gpio framework.

Performance/latency-wise that would also be strongly encouraged.

Tglx isn't super-happy about the chained interrupts at times, as they
can create really nasty bugs, but a pure IRQ in fastpath of some
kinde is preferable and intuitive either way.

Yours,
Linus Walleij