Jerome,
On 19/10/16 16:21, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> Add support for the interrupt gpio controller found on Amlogic's meson
> SoC family.
>
> Unlike what the IP name suggest, it is not directly linked to the gpio
> subsystem. It is actually an independent IP that is able to spy on the
> SoC pad. For that purpose, it can mux and filter (edge or level and
> polarity) any single SoC pad to one of the 8 GIC's interrupts it owns.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jerome Brunet <jbru...@baylibre.com>
> ---
> drivers/irqchip/Kconfig | 9 +
> drivers/irqchip/Makefile | 1 +
> drivers/irqchip/irq-meson-gpio.c | 423
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 433 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 drivers/irqchip/irq-meson-gpio.c
>
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig b/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig
> index 82b0b5daf3f5..168837263e80 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/Kconfig
> @@ -279,3 +279,12 @@ config EZNPS_GIC
> config STM32_EXTI
> bool
> select IRQ_DOMAIN
> +
> +config MESON_GPIO_IRQ
> + bool "Meson GPIO Interrupt Multiplexer"
> + depends on ARCH_MESON || COMPILE_TEST
> + select IRQ_DOMAIN
> + select IRQ_DOMAIN_HIERARCHY
> + help
> + Support Meson SoC Family GPIO Interrupt Multiplexer
> +
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/Makefile b/drivers/irqchip/Makefile
> index e4dbfc85abdb..33f913d037d0 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/Makefile
> @@ -74,3 +74,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_LS_SCFG_MSI) += irq-ls-scfg-msi.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_EZNPS_GIC) += irq-eznps.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_ASPEED) += irq-aspeed-vic.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_STM32_EXTI) += irq-stm32-exti.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_MESON_GPIO_IRQ) += irq-meson-gpio.o
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-meson-gpio.c
> b/drivers/irqchip/irq-meson-gpio.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..869b4df8c483
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-meson-gpio.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,423 @@
> +/*
> + * Copyright (c) 2015 Endless Mobile, Inc.
> + * Author: Carlo Caione <ca...@endlessm.com>
> + * Copyright (c) 2016 BayLibre, SAS.
> + * Author: Jerome Brunet <jbru...@baylibre.com>
> + *
> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> + * it under the terms of version 2 of the GNU General Public License as
> + * published by the Free Software Foundation.
> + *
> + * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
> + * WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> + * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU
> + * General Public License for more details.
> + *
> + * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> + * along with this program; if not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
> + * The full GNU General Public License is included in this distribution
> + * in the file called COPYING.
> + */
> +
> +#define pr_fmt(fmt) KBUILD_MODNAME ": " fmt
> +
> +#include <linux/io.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/irq.h>
> +#include <linux/irqdomain.h>
> +#include <linux/irqchip.h>
> +#include <linux/of.h>
> +#include <linux/of_address.h>
> +
> +#define IRQ_FREE (-1)
> +
> +#define REG_EDGE_POL 0x00
> +#define REG_PIN_03_SEL 0x04
> +#define REG_PIN_47_SEL 0x08
> +#define REG_FILTER_SEL 0x0c
> +
> +#define REG_EDGE_POL_MASK(x) (BIT(x) | BIT(16 + (x)))
> +#define REG_EDGE_POL_EDGE(x) BIT(x)
> +#define REG_EDGE_POL_LOW(x) BIT(16 + (x))
> +#define REG_PIN_SEL_SHIFT(x) (((x) % 4) * 8)
> +#define REG_FILTER_SEL_SHIFT(x) ((x) * 4)
> +
> +struct meson_gpio_irq_params {
> + unsigned int nhwirq;
> + irq_hw_number_t *source;
> + int nsource;
> +};
> +
> +struct meson_gpio_irq_domain {
The name of that structure is utterly confusing, as it doesn't contain
anything related to an IRQ domain. Can you please clarify its usage?
> + void __iomem *base;
> + int *map;
> + const struct meson_gpio_irq_params *params;
> +};
> +
> +struct meson_gpio_irq_chip_data {
> + void __iomem *base;
> + int index;
> +};
> +
> +static irq_hw_number_t meson_parent_hwirqs[] = {
> + 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71,
> +};
If that a guarantee that these numbers will always represent the parent
interrupt? It feels a bit odd not to get that information directly from
the device tree, in the form of a device specific property. Something like:
upstream-interrupts = <64 65 66 ... >;
or even as a base/range:
upstream-interrupts = <64 8>;
Also, how does it work if you have more than a single device like this?
This driver seems a do a great deal of dynamic allocation, and yet its
core resource is completely static... Please pick a side! ;-)
> +
> +static const struct meson_gpio_irq_params meson8_params = {
> + .nhwirq = 134,
> + .source = meson_parent_hwirqs,
> + .nsource = ARRAY_SIZE(meson_parent_hwirqs),
I find it utterly confusing that you are calling source something that
is an output for this controller. It makes my brain melt, and I don't
like the feeling.
> +};
> +
> +static const struct meson_gpio_irq_params meson8b_params = {
> + .nhwirq = 119,
> + .source = meson_parent_hwirqs,
> + .nsource = ARRAY_SIZE(meson_parent_hwirqs),
> +};
> +
> +static const struct meson_gpio_irq_params meson_gxbb_params = {
> + .nhwirq = 133,
> + .source = meson_parent_hwirqs,
> + .nsource = ARRAY_SIZE(meson_parent_hwirqs),
> +};
Same thing. How big is the variability of these structures? Are we going
to see more of those? or is that now set into stone?
+Mark: what's the policy to describe this kind of things?
> +
> +static const struct of_device_id meson_irq_gpio_matches[] = {
> + {
> + .compatible = "amlogic,meson8-gpio-intc",
If it's an independent IP (as described in the commit message),
shouldn't in be rescribed in a more SoC-independent way?
> + .data = &meson8_params
> + },
> + {
> + .compatible = "amlogic,meson8b-gpio-intc",
> + .data = &meson8b_params
> + },
> + {
> + .compatible = "amlogic,meson-gxbb-gpio-intc",
> + .data = &meson_gxbb_params
> + },
> + {}
> +};
> +
> +static void meson_gpio_irq_update_bits(void __iomem *base, unsigned int reg,
> + u32 mask, u32 val)
> +{
> + u32 tmp;
> +
> + tmp = readl(base + reg);
> + tmp &= ~mask;
> + tmp |= val;
> +
> + writel(tmp, base + reg);
Can't you use the relaxed accessors?
> +}
> +
> +static int meson_gpio_irq_get_index(struct meson_gpio_irq_domain
> *domain_data,
> + int hwirq)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < domain_data->params->nsource; i++) {
> + if (domain_data->map[i] == hwirq)
> + return i;
> + }
> +
> + return -1;
I'm a bit worried by this function. If you need an allocator, then
having a simple bitmap is much better than iterating over an array.
If you're using this to go from a hwirq to the structure describing your
interrupt, this is wrong. You should never have to look-up something
based on a hwirq, because that's what irq domains are for.
> +}
> +
> +static int mesion_gpio_irq_map_source(struct meson_gpio_irq_domain
> *domain_data,
> + irq_hw_number_t hwirq,
> + irq_hw_number_t *source)
> +{
> + int index;
> + unsigned int reg;
> +
> + index = meson_gpio_irq_get_index(domain_data, IRQ_FREE);
So assuming you turn this into a proper bitmap driven allocator...
> + if (index < 0) {
> + pr_err("No irq available\n");
> + return -ENOSPC;
> + }
> +
> + domain_data->map[index] = hwirq;
this can go away, as there is hardly any point in tracking the hwirq on
its own. Actually, the whole map[] array looks totally useless.
> +
> + reg = (index < 4) ? REG_PIN_03_SEL : REG_PIN_47_SEL;
> + meson_gpio_irq_update_bits(domain_data->base, reg,
> + 0xff << REG_PIN_SEL_SHIFT(index),
> + hwirq << REG_PIN_SEL_SHIFT(index));
> +
> + *source = domain_data->params->source[index];
> +
> + pr_debug("hwirq %lu assigned to channel %d - source %lu\n",
> + hwirq, index, *source);
> +
> + return index;
> +}
> +
> +static int meson_gpio_irq_type_setup(unsigned int type, void __iomem *base,
> + int index)
> +{
> + u32 val = 0;
> +
> + type &= IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;
> +
> + if (type == IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + if (type & (IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING | IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING))
> + val |= REG_EDGE_POL_EDGE(index);
> +
> + if (type & (IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW | IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING))
> + val |= REG_EDGE_POL_LOW(index);
> +
> + meson_gpio_irq_update_bits(base, REG_EDGE_POL,
> + REG_EDGE_POL_MASK(index), val);
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static unsigned int meson_gpio_irq_type_output(unsigned int type)
> +{
> + unsigned int sense = type & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;
> +
> + type &= ~IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;
> +
> + /*
> + * If the polarity of interrupt is low, the controller will
> + * invert the signal for gic
> + */
> + if (sense & (IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW))
> + type |= IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH;
> + else if (sense & (IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING | IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING))
> + type |= IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING;
> +
> + return type;
> +}
> +
> +static int meson_gpio_irq_set_type(struct irq_data *data, unsigned int type)
> +{
> + struct meson_gpio_irq_chip_data *cd = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data);
> + int ret;
> +
> + pr_debug("set type of hwirq %lu to %u\n", data->hwirq, type);
> +
> + ret = meson_gpio_irq_type_setup(type, cd->base, cd->index);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + return irq_chip_set_type_parent(data,
> + meson_gpio_irq_type_output(type));
> +}
> +
> +static struct irq_chip meson_gpio_irq_chip = {
> + .name = "meson-gpio-irqchip",
> + .irq_mask = irq_chip_mask_parent,
> + .irq_unmask = irq_chip_unmask_parent,
> + .irq_eoi = irq_chip_eoi_parent,
> + .irq_set_type = meson_gpio_irq_set_type,
> + .irq_retrigger = irq_chip_retrigger_hierarchy,
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> + .irq_set_affinity = irq_chip_set_affinity_parent,
> +#endif
> +};
> +
> +static int meson_gpio_irq_domain_translate(struct irq_domain *domain,
> + struct irq_fwspec *fwspec,
> + unsigned long *hwirq,
> + unsigned int *type)
> +{
> + if (is_of_node(fwspec->fwnode)) {
> + if (fwspec->param_count != 2)
> + return -EINVAL;
You can write this as:
if (is_of_node() && fwspec->... == 2) {
> +
> + *hwirq = fwspec->param[0];
> + *type = fwspec->param[1];
> +
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + return -EINVAL;
> +}
> +
> +static int meson_gpio_irq_allocate_gic_irq(struct irq_domain *domain,
> + unsigned int virq,
> + irq_hw_number_t source,
> + unsigned int type)
> +{
> + struct irq_fwspec fwspec;
> +
> + if (!irq_domain_get_of_node(domain->parent))
> + return -EINVAL;
How can you end-up here if the translate operation has failed?
> +
> + fwspec.fwnode = domain->parent->fwnode;
> + fwspec.param_count = 3;
> + fwspec.param[0] = 0; /* SPI */
> + fwspec.param[1] = source;
> + fwspec.param[2] = meson_gpio_irq_type_output(type);
> +
> + return irq_domain_alloc_irqs_parent(domain, virq, 1, &fwspec);
> +}
> +
> +static int meson_gpio_irq_domain_alloc(struct irq_domain *domain,
> + unsigned int virq,
> + unsigned int nr_irqs,
> + void *data)
> +{
> + struct irq_fwspec *fwspec = data;
> + struct meson_gpio_irq_domain *domain_data = domain->host_data;
> + struct meson_gpio_irq_chip_data *cd;
> + unsigned long hwirq, source;
> + unsigned int type;
> + int i, index, ret;
> +
> + ret = meson_gpio_irq_domain_translate(domain, fwspec, &hwirq, &type);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + pr_debug("irq %d, nr_irqs %d, hwirqs %lu\n", virq, nr_irqs, hwirq);
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < nr_irqs; i++) {
This is a pattern that gets repeated over and over, for no good reason.
The only reason we have this nr_irqs thing is to handle things like
multi-MSI, where we have to *guarantee* that the hwirqs are allocated in
a contiguous manner.
Here, you don't enforce that guarantee, so you'd rather have a big fat:
if (WARN_ON(nr_irqs != 1))
return -EINVAL;
and get rid of that loop, because I cannot imagine a case where you'd
allocate more than a single interrupt at a time.
> + index = mesion_gpio_irq_map_source(domain_data, hwirq + i,
> + &source);
> + if (index < 0)
> + return index;
> +
> + ret = meson_gpio_irq_type_setup(type, domain_data->base,
> + index);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
Why do you have to to this here? This should be handled by the core code
already.
> +
> + cd = kzalloc(sizeof(*cd), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!cd)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + cd->base = domain_data->base;
> + cd->index = index;
So what is the exact purpose of this structure? The base address is
essentially a global, or could be directly derived from the domain. The
index is only used in set_type, and is the index of the pin connected to
the GIC. It looks to me like you could have:
irq_hw_number_t *out_line = &meson_parent_hwirqs[index];
> +
> + irq_domain_set_hwirq_and_chip(domain, virq + i, hwirq + i,
> + &meson_gpio_irq_chip, cd);
and this written as
irq_domain_set_hwirq_and_chip(domain, virq, hwirq,
out_line);
In your set_type function, you just compute the index back:
irq_hw_number_t *out_line = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data);
irq_hw_number_t index = out_line - meson_parent_hwirqs;
and you're done.
> +
> + ret = meson_gpio_irq_allocate_gic_irq(domain, virq + i,
> + source, type);
Resource leak on error.
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void meson_gpio_irq_domain_free(struct irq_domain *domain,
> + unsigned int virq,
> + unsigned int nr_irqs)
> +{
> + struct meson_gpio_irq_domain *domain_data = domain->host_data;
> + struct meson_gpio_irq_chip_data *cd;
> + struct irq_data *irq_data;
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < nr_irqs; i++) {
Same comment as above.
> + irq_data = irq_domain_get_irq_data(domain, virq + i);
> + cd = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(irq_data);
> +
> + domain_data->map[cd->index] = IRQ_FREE;
> + kfree(cd);
> + }
> +
> + irq_domain_free_irqs_parent(domain, virq, nr_irqs);
> +
> +}
> +
> +static const struct irq_domain_ops meson_gpio_irq_domain_ops = {
> + .alloc = meson_gpio_irq_domain_alloc,
> + .free = meson_gpio_irq_domain_free,
> + .translate = meson_gpio_irq_domain_translate,
> +};
> +
> +static int __init
> +meson_gpio_irq_init_domain(struct device_node *node,
> + struct meson_gpio_irq_domain *domain_data,
> + const struct meson_gpio_irq_params *params)
> +{
> + int i;
> + int nsource = params->nsource;
> + int *map;
> +
> + map = kcalloc(nsource, sizeof(*map), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!map)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < nsource; i++)
> + map[i] = IRQ_FREE;
> +
> + domain_data->map = map;
You should now be able to kill most or all of this.
> + domain_data->params = params;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int __init meson_gpio_irq_of_init(struct device_node *node,
> + struct device_node *parent)
> +{
> + struct irq_domain *domain, *parent_domain;
> + const struct of_device_id *match;
> + const struct meson_gpio_irq_params *params;
> + struct meson_gpio_irq_domain *domain_data;
> + int ret;
> +
> + match = of_match_node(meson_irq_gpio_matches, node);
> + if (!match)
> + return -ENODEV;
> + params = match->data;
> +
> + if (!parent) {
> + pr_err("missing parent interrupt node\n");
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
> +
> + parent_domain = irq_find_host(parent);
> + if (!parent_domain) {
> + pr_err("unable to obtain parent domain\n");
> + return -ENXIO;
> + }
> +
> + domain_data = kzalloc(sizeof(*domain_data), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!domain_data)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + domain_data->base = of_iomap(node, 0);
> + if (!domain_data->base) {
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + goto out_free_dev;
> + }
> +
> + ret = meson_gpio_irq_init_domain(node, domain_data, params);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto out_free_dev_content;
> +
> + domain = irq_domain_add_hierarchy(parent_domain, 0, params->nhwirq,
> + node, &meson_gpio_irq_domain_ops,
> + domain_data);
Please be consistent in using the fwnode API instead of the of_node one.
> +
> + if (!domain) {
> + pr_err("failed to allocated domain\n");
> + ret = -ENOMEM;
> + goto out_free_dev_content;
> + }
> +
> + pr_info("%d to %d gpio interrupt mux initialized\n",
> + params->nhwirq, params->nsource);
> +
> + return 0;
> +
> +out_free_dev_content:
> + kfree(domain_data->map);
> + iounmap(domain_data->base);
> +
> +out_free_dev:
> + kfree(domain_data);
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +IRQCHIP_DECLARE(meson8_gpio_intc, "amlogic,meson8-gpio-intc",
> + meson_gpio_irq_of_init);
> +IRQCHIP_DECLARE(meson8b_gpio_intc, "amlogic,meson8b-gpio-intc",
> + meson_gpio_irq_of_init);
> +IRQCHIP_DECLARE(gxbb_gpio_intc, "amlogic,meson-gxbb-gpio-intc",
> + meson_gpio_irq_of_init);
>
Overall, this driver is a bit of a mess. Tons of structures that don't
make much sense, and a false sense of being able to support multiple
instances of the device.
I'll let Mark comment on the DT side of things.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
