[PATCH] gpio: zynq: Implement irq_(request|release)_resources
From: Sören Brinkmann <hidden>
Date: 2015-10-29 16:47:19
Also in:
linux-gpio, lkml
On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 05:37PM +0100, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
On 10/27/2015 04:53 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:quoted
On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Soren Brinkmann [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
The driver uses runtime PM to leverage low power techniques. For use-cases using GPIO as interrupt the device needs to be in an appropriate state. Reported-by: John Linn <redacted> Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <redacted> Tested-by: John Linn <redacted>As pointed out by Grygorii in commit aca82d1cbb49af34b69ecd4571a0fe48ad9247c1: The PM runtime API can't be used in atomic contex on -RT even if it's configured as irqsafe. As result, below error report can be seen when PM runtime API called from IRQ chip's callbacks irq_startup/irq_shutdown/irq_set_type, because they are protected by RAW spinlock: (...) The IRQ chip interface defines only two callbacks which are executed in non-atomic contex - irq_bus_lock/irq_bus_sync_unlock, so lets move PM runtime calls there. I.e. these calls are atomic context and it's just luck that it works and this is fragile. Can you please check if you can move it to irq_bus_lock()/irq_sync_unlock() like Grygorii does?That only powers up the chip when the chip is accessed. For proper IRQ operation the chip needs to be powered up though as long as the IRQ is enabled. request_irq() and free_irq() must always be called from sleepable context. The thing is just that request_resource/release_resource are called from within a raw spinlock, which is necessary since otherwise you can't guarantee that they are only called once for shared interrupts. It might make sense to add a separate set of callbacks to the irq_chip struct that are called from the sleepable sections of request_irq()/free_irq() which are meant for power management purposes and which wont have the guarantee that they are only called once for shared IRQs (but are still balanced).
Let me try to summarize what I've heard so far: - reqres/relres are called from atomic context, hence must not sleep - pm_runtime API must not be used from atomic context, even when the implementation of the callbacks does not sleep - when overriding regres/relres, a driver must re-implement the default behavior the core provides - bus lock/unlock is not sufficient for this case because it doesn't keep the device on as long as an IRQ is expected - a new pair of gpiochip ops might be helpful Does that summarize the current situation correctly? If so, I'd tend to agree with Lars that we might need another pair of callbacks in the gpiochip struct. Thanks, S?ren