Re: [PATCH v2] pinctrl: samsung: add irq_set_affinity() for non wake up external gpio interrupt

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 29/11/2023 08:07, Youngmin Nam wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 03:35:53PM -0600, Sam Protsenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 28, 2023 at 1:29 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28/11/2023 02:01, Youngmin Nam wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2023 at 10:54:56AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 26/11/2023 10:46, Youngmin Nam wrote:
>>>>>> To support affinity setting for non wake up external gpio interrupt,
>>>>>> add irq_set_affinity callback using irq number from pinctrl driver data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Before this patch, changing the irq affinity of gpio interrupt is not possible:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     # cat /proc/irq/418/smp_affinity
>>>>>>     3ff
>>>>>>     # echo 00f > /proc/irq/418/smp_affinity
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this command succeed on your board?
>>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> Hm, fails all the time one mine.
>>>
>>
>> I tried to test this patch on E850-96, and an attempt to write into
>> smp_affinity (for some GPIO irq) also fails for me:
>>
>>     # echo f0 > smp_affinity
>>     -bash: echo: write error: Input/output error
>>
>> When I add some pr_err() to exynos_irq_set_affinity(), I can't see
>> those printed in dmesg. So I guess exynos_irq_set_affinity() doesn't
>> get called at all. So the error probably happens before
>> .irq_set_affinity callback gets called.
>>
>> Youngmin, can you please try and test this patch on E850-96? This
>> board is already supported in upstream kernel. For example you can use
>> "Volume Up" interrupt for the test, which is GPIO irq.
>>
> 
> I intened this affinity setting would work only on *Non* Wakeup External Interrupt.
> The "Volume Up" on E850-96 board is connected with "gpa0-7" and
> that is Wakeup External interrupt so that we can't test the callback.
> 
> I couldn't find out a pin for the test on E850-96 board yet.
> We can test if there is a usage of *Non" Wake up External Interrupt of GPIO
> on E850-96 board.
> 
> Do you have any idea ?

Please test on any upstream platform or upstream your existing platform.
I hesitate to take this change because I don't trust Samsung that this
was tested on mainline kernel. OK, for sure 100% it was not tested on
mainline, but I am afraid that differences were far beyond just missing
platforms. Therefore the issue might or might not exist at all. Maybe
issue is caused by other Samsung non-upstreamed code.

Best regards,
Krzysztof