Re: [PATCH v2] pinctrl: qcom: sc7180: Make gpio28 non wakeup capable for google,lazor

[Bjorn Andersson]

On Mon 06 Jul 13:24 PDT 2020, Doug Anderson wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 12:49 AM Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > The PDC irqchip driver currently does not handle dual-edge interrupts,
> > and we have google,lazor board with sc7180 designed to configure gpio28
> > as a dual-edge interrupt. This interrupt is however not expected to be
> > wakeup capable on this board, so an easy way to fix this, seems to be to
> > make this gpio non wakeup capable and let TLMM handle it (which is capable
> > of handling dual-edge irqs)
> >
> > To be able to do so only on this board, so other boards designed with
> > this SoC can continue to use gpio28 as a wakeup capable one, make a
> > copy of msm_gpio_wakeirq_map for lazor and remove gpio28 from the
> > list.
> >
> > Reported-by: Jimmy Cheng-Yi Chiang <cychiang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sc7180.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sc7180.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sc7180.c
> > index 1b6465a..0668933 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sc7180.c
> > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-sc7180.c
> > @@ -1135,7 +1135,24 @@ static const struct msm_gpio_wakeirq_map sc7180_pdc_map[] = {
> >         {117, 114}, {118, 119},
> >  };
> >
> > -static const struct msm_pinctrl_soc_data sc7180_pinctrl = {
> > +/* Dropped gpio28 from the map for the google,lazor board */
> > +static const struct msm_gpio_wakeirq_map sc7180_lazor_pdc_map[] = {
> > +       {0, 40}, {3, 50}, {4, 42}, {5, 70}, {6, 41}, {9, 35},
> > +       {10, 80}, {11, 51}, {16, 20}, {21, 55}, {22, 90}, {23, 21},
> > +       {24, 61}, {26, 52}, {30, 100}, {31, 33}, {32, 81},
> > +       {33, 62}, {34, 43}, {36, 91}, {37, 53}, {38, 63}, {39, 72},
> > +       {41, 101}, {42, 7}, {43, 34}, {45, 73}, {47, 82}, {49, 17},
> > +       {52, 109}, {53, 102}, {55, 92}, {56, 56}, {57, 57}, {58, 83},
> > +       {59, 37}, {62, 110}, {63, 111}, {64, 74}, {65, 44}, {66, 93},
> > +       {67, 58}, {68, 112}, {69, 32}, {70, 54}, {72, 59}, {73, 64},
> > +       {74, 71}, {78, 31}, {82, 30}, {85, 103}, {86, 38}, {87, 39},
> > +       {88, 45}, {89, 46}, {90, 47}, {91, 48}, {92, 60}, {93, 49},
> > +       {94, 84}, {95, 94}, {98, 65}, {101, 66}, {104, 67}, {109, 104},
> > +       {110, 68}, {113, 69}, {114, 113}, {115, 108}, {116, 121},
> > +       {117, 114}, {118, 119},
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct msm_pinctrl_soc_data sc7180_pinctrl = {
> >         .pins = sc7180_pins,
> >         .npins = ARRAY_SIZE(sc7180_pins),
> >         .functions = sc7180_functions,
> > @@ -1151,6 +1168,10 @@ static const struct msm_pinctrl_soc_data sc7180_pinctrl = {
> >
> >  static int sc7180_pinctrl_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  {
> > +       if (of_machine_is_compatible("google,lazor")) {
> > +               sc7180_pinctrl.wakeirq_map = sc7180_lazor_pdc_map;
> > +               sc7180_pinctrl.nwakeirq_map = ARRAY_SIZE(sc7180_lazor_pdc_map);
> > +       }
> 
> As much as I want patches landed and things working, the above just
> doesn't feel like a viable solution.  I guess it could work as a short
> term hack but it's going to become untenable pretty quickly.

I second that.

> As we
> have more variants of this we're going to have to just keep piling
> more machines in here, right?  ...this is also already broken for us
> because not all boards will have the "google,lazor" compatible.  From
> the current Chrome OS here are the compatibles for various revs/SKUs
> 
> compatible = "google,lazor-rev0", "qcom,sc7180";
> compatible = "google,lazor-rev0-sku0", "qcom,sc7180";
> compatible = "google,lazor", "qcom,sc7180";
> compatible = "google,lazor-sku0", "qcom,sc7180";
> compatible = "google,lazor-rev2", "qcom,sc7180";
> 
> ...so of the 5 boards you'll only match one of them.
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm jumping into a situation again where I'm ignorant since I
> haven't followed all the prior conversation, but is it really that
> hard to just add dual edge support to the PDC irqchip driver?  ...or
> maybe it's just easier to change the pinctrl driver to emulate dual
> edge itself and that can work around the problem in the PDC?  There
> seem to be a few samples you could copy from:
> 
> $ git log --oneline --no-merges --grep=emulate drivers/pinctrl/
> 3221f40b7631 pinctrl: mediatek: emulate GPIO interrupt on both-edges
> 5a92750133ff pinctrl: rockchip: emulate both edge triggered interrupts
> 

pinctrl-msm already supports emulating dual edge, but my understanding
was that the problem lies in that somehow this emulation would have to
be tied to or affect the PDC driver?

Regards,
Bjorn

> ...and if you look at those two commits they refer to other examples.
> The mediatek one says:
> 
> > This follows an example of drivers/gpio/gpio-mxc.c.
> 
> ...and the Rockchip one says:
> 
> > implement a solution similar to pinctrl-coh901
> 
> That means you have at least 4 samples to look at?
> 
> 
> -Doug