Hi,No its not broken, it works as expected. after step #4, interrupt will fire.
On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 2:33 AM Maulik Shah <mkshah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Remove irq_disable callback to allow lazy disable for pdc interrupts.I _think_ this will break masking, right? In other words, consider
Add irq_set_wake callback that unmask interrupt in HW when drivers
mark interrupt for wakeup. Interrupt will be cleared in HW during
lazy disable if its not marked for wakeup.
Signed-off-by: Maulik Shah <mkshah@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/irqchip/qcom-pdc.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/qcom-pdc.c b/drivers/irqchip/qcom-pdc.c
index 6ae9e1f..8beb6f7 100644
--- a/drivers/irqchip/qcom-pdc.c
+++ b/drivers/irqchip/qcom-pdc.c
@@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ struct pdc_pin_region {
u32 cnt;
};
+static DECLARE_BITMAP(pdc_wake_irqs, PDC_MAX_IRQS);
static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(pdc_lock);
static void __iomem *pdc_base;
static struct pdc_pin_region *pdc_region;
@@ -87,22 +88,17 @@ static void pdc_enable_intr(struct irq_data *d, bool on)
raw_spin_unlock(&pdc_lock);
}
-static void qcom_pdc_gic_disable(struct irq_data *d)
+static int qcom_pdc_gic_set_wake(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int on)
{
- if (d->hwirq == GPIO_NO_WAKE_IRQ)
- return;
-
- pdc_enable_intr(d, false);
- irq_chip_disable_parent(d);
-}
-
-static void qcom_pdc_gic_enable(struct irq_data *d)
-{
- if (d->hwirq == GPIO_NO_WAKE_IRQ)
- return;
+ if (on) {
+ pdc_enable_intr(d, true);
+ irq_chip_enable_parent(d);
+ set_bit(d->hwirq, pdc_wake_irqs);
+ } else {
+ clear_bit(d->hwirq, pdc_wake_irqs);
+ }
- pdc_enable_intr(d, true);
- irq_chip_enable_parent(d);
+ return irq_chip_set_wake_parent(d, on);
}
static void qcom_pdc_gic_mask(struct irq_data *d)
@@ -111,6 +107,9 @@ static void qcom_pdc_gic_mask(struct irq_data *d)
return;
irq_chip_mask_parent(d);
+
+ if (!test_bit(d->hwirq, pdc_wake_irqs))
+ pdc_enable_intr(d, false);
the following (having nothing to do with suspend/resume):
1. Driver requests an interrupt.
2. Driver masks interrupt (calls disable_irq())
3. Interrupt fires while it is masked.
4. Driver unmasks interrupt (calls enable_irq().
After step #4 the interrupt should fire since it was only masked, not
disabled (yes, it's super confusing that the driver calls
disable_irq() but it expecting it to be masked--as I understand it
that's just how it is). I haven't tested, but I suspect that's broken
for you now (assuming you're working on a pin that wasn't a wakeup
pin) because you won't track edges when you're "disabled".
I suspect that the right thing to do here is to:
a) Make qcom_pdc_gic_set_wake() just keep "pdc_wake_irqs" up to date
and then call parent.
b) Implement irq_suspend and irq_resume. In irq_suspend() you disable
all interrupts that aren't in "pdc_wake_irqs". In irq_resume() you
just re-enable all of them (masking will be handled by the parent).
Would that work?
...oh, drat! The .irq_suspend() callback is only there if you're
using "irq/generic-chip.c". OK, well unless we want to move over to
using generic-chip we can just register for syscore ourselves. OK, I
tested and <https://crrev.com/c/2296160> works.
--
}
static void qcom_pdc_gic_unmask(struct irq_data *d)
@@ -118,6 +117,7 @@ static void qcom_pdc_gic_unmask(struct irq_data *d)
if (d->hwirq == GPIO_NO_WAKE_IRQ)
return;
+ pdc_enable_intr(d, true);
irq_chip_unmask_parent(d);
}
@@ -197,15 +197,13 @@ static struct irq_chip qcom_pdc_gic_chip = {
.irq_eoi = irq_chip_eoi_parent,
.irq_mask = qcom_pdc_gic_mask,
.irq_unmask = qcom_pdc_gic_unmask,
- .irq_disable = qcom_pdc_gic_disable,
- .irq_enable = qcom_pdc_gic_enable,
.irq_get_irqchip_state = qcom_pdc_gic_get_irqchip_state,
.irq_set_irqchip_state = qcom_pdc_gic_set_irqchip_state,
.irq_retrigger = irq_chip_retrigger_hierarchy,
.irq_set_type = qcom_pdc_gic_set_type,
+ .irq_set_wake = qcom_pdc_gic_set_wake,
.flags = IRQCHIP_MASK_ON_SUSPEND |
- IRQCHIP_SET_TYPE_MASKED |
- IRQCHIP_SKIP_SET_WAKE,
+ IRQCHIP_SET_TYPE_MASKED,
.irq_set_vcpu_affinity = irq_chip_set_vcpu_affinity_parent,
.irq_set_affinity = irq_chip_set_affinity_parent,
};
--
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member
of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation