Re: [PATCH v2] gpio: interrupt consistency check for OF GPIO IRQs

[Stephen Warren]

On 08/23/2013 12:45 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:10 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 08/21/2013 05:36 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> [Me]
>>>>>> check if these in turn reference the interrupt-controller, and
>>>>>> if they do, loop over the interrupts used by that child and
>>>>>> perform gpio_request() and gpio_direction_input() on these,
>>>>>> making them unreachable from the GPIO side.
>>>>
>>>> What about bindings that require a GPIO to be specified, yet don't allow
>>>> an IRQ to be specified, and the driver internally does perform
>>>> gpio_to_irq() on it? I don't think one can detect that case.
>>>
>>> This is still allowed. Consumers that prefer to have a GPIO
>>> passed and convert it to IRQ by that call can still do so,
>>> they will know what they're doing and will not cause the
>>> double-command situation that we're trying to solve.
>>
>> Why not? There are certainly drivers in the kernel which request a GPIO
>> as both a GPIO and as an (dual-edge) interrupt, so that they can read
>> the GPIO input whenever the IRQ goes off, in order to determine the pin
>> state. This is safer against high-latency or lost interrupts.
> 
> Yes? Are we talking past each other here?
> 
> This is a perfectly OK thing to do as long as it is done like
> this:
> 
> request_gpio(gpio);
> gpio_direction_input(gpio);
> request_irq(gpio_to_irq(gpio));

But I'm not aware that there's a rule saying it's illegal to:

request_irq(gpio_to_irq(gpio));
request_gpio(gpio);
gpio_direction_input(gpio);

> Pass only the GPIO in the device tree and this works just fine.

And I wouldn't be surprised if there were DTs that had separate GPIO and
interrupt entries for the same pin. In fact, it's arguably technically
more correct to do that than just list the GPIO, and then hope the OS
will be able to convert it to the correct IRQ. Then, drivers wouldn't
have any reason to believe they needed a specific IRQ-vs-GPIO request
ordering.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/