Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230510001151.3946931-1-chris.packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
 <ZFtK3DydE24Qijle@surfacebook> <760ae58f-cb0b-dfe6-9e24-664310651e18@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
In-Reply-To: <760ae58f-cb0b-dfe6-9e24-664310651e18@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Date:   Thu, 11 May 2023 10:00:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CACRpkdb1UFQ=1gePeBBEQ3ODu+6m0dHBqaxdtOF9Qc01WytMEQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: Don't implicitly disable irq when masking
To:     Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
Cc:     "andy.shevchenko@gmail.com" <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
        "brgl@bgdev.pl" <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
        Ben Brown <Ben.Brown@alliedtelesis.co.nz>,
        "linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Hans Verkuil <hverkuil-cisco@xs4all.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 10:59=E2=80=AFPM Chris Packham
<Chris.Packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz> wrote:

> The coupling of gpiochip_irq_mask()/gpiochip_irq_unmask() with
> gpiochip_disable_irq()/gpiochip_enable_irq() goes back to the same
> commit a8173820f441 ("gpio: gpiolib: Allow GPIO IRQs to lazy disable").
> It's not immediately obvious to me why the coupling is needed.

That is just a refactoring of what existed before.

The use case is here:
drivers/media/cec/platform/cec-gpio/cec-gpio.c

The driver needs to switch, at runtime, between actively driving a GPIO
line with gpiod_set_value(), and setting the same line into input mode
and listening for signalling triggering IRQs on it, and then back to
output mode and driving the line again. It's a bidirectional GPIO line.
This use case yields a high need of control.

> I was
> hoping that someone seeing my patch would confirm that it's not needed
> or say why it's needed suggest an alternative approach.

Which IRQ-enabled gpiochip is this? Has it been converted to be immutable?
I think that could be part of the problem.

Yours,
Linus Walleij