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;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <20210108093339.v5.2.I3635de080604e1feda770591c5563bd6e63dd39d@changeid>
References: <20210108093339.v5.1.I3ad184e3423d8e479bc3e86f5b393abb1704a1d1@changeid> <20210108093339.v5.2.I3635de080604e1feda770591c5563bd6e63dd39d@changeid>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] pinctrl: qcom: No need to read-modify-write the interrupt status
From:   Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
Cc:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@codeaurora.org>,
        Maulik Shah <mkshah@codeaurora.org>,
        linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org,
        Srinivas Ramana <sramana@codeaurora.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To:     Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Date:   Wed, 13 Jan 2021 23:01:54 -0800
Message-ID: <161060771402.3661239.1174238618385699475@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
User-Agent: alot/0.9.1
Precedence: bulk

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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> NOTE: this code fixes no bugs--it simply avoids an extra register
> read.
>=20
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> ---

Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>