| Message ID | 1457715962-108484-1-git-send-email-qipeng.zha@intel.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 01:06:00AM +0800, Qipeng Zha wrote: > Some module need to enable RX invertion config on BXT platform. > > Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <qi.zheng@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Qipeng Zha <qipeng.zha@intel.com> Can I ask what module might need this? I'm not so certain we want to add anything like this to the driver to be honest. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 01:06:00AM +0800, Qipeng Zha wrote: > Some module need to enable RX invertion config on BXT platform. > > Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <qi.zheng@intel.com> > Signed-off-by: Qipeng Zha <qipeng.zha@intel.com> > Can I ask what module might need this? I'm not so certain we want to add anything like this to the driver to be honest. The "pi330532" device on Broxton requires this function to manually trigger an GPIO input interrupt. That is to say, actually no signal change on the pin but toggling this RX inversion bit to make the GPIO controller believes there is voltage change on the pin thus triggering the interrupt. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 03:10:07AM +0200, Zheng, Qi wrote: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 01:06:00AM +0800, Qipeng Zha wrote: > > Some module need to enable RX invertion config on BXT platform. > > > > Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <qi.zheng@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Qipeng Zha <qipeng.zha@intel.com> > > > Can I ask what module might need this? I'm not so certain we want to add anything like this to the driver to be honest. > > The "pi330532" device on Broxton requires this function to manually trigger an GPIO input interrupt. > > That is to say, actually no signal change on the pin but toggling this > RX inversion bit to make the GPIO controller believes there is voltage > change on the pin thus triggering the interrupt. That sounds rather hackish thing and definitely should not be part of the driver IMHO. I'm pretty sure there are better ways to do what you are doing. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
BRs On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 03:10:07AM +0200, Zheng, Qi wrote: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 01:06:00AM +0800, Qipeng Zha wrote: > > Some module need to enable RX invertion config on BXT platform. > > > > Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <qi.zheng@intel.com> > > Signed-off-by: Qipeng Zha <qipeng.zha@intel.com> > > > Can I ask what module might need this? I'm not so certain we want to add anything like this to the driver to be honest. > > The "pi330532" device on Broxton requires this function to manually trigger an GPIO input interrupt. > > That is to say, actually no signal change on the pin but toggling this > RX inversion bit to make the GPIO controller believes there is voltage > change on the pin thus triggering the interrupt. > That sounds rather hackish thing and definitely should not be part of the driver IMHO. > I'm pretty sure there are better ways to do what you are doing. We have gone through this requirement from CHT to BXT, there was no other better way to simulate the GPIO interrupt for the use of those devices. If you insist it is not OK, I am fine to keep it on Intel local branch. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Zheng, Qi <qi.zheng@intel.com> wrote: > The "pi330532" device on Broxton requires this function to manually > trigger an GPIO input interrupt. (...) > We have gone through this requirement from CHT to BXT, there was no > other better way to simulate the GPIO interrupt for the use of those devices. I what you want is to trigger IRQs on GPIO lines using software we need to add that to the GPIOlib subsystem, so this register gets accessed from the GPIO side of things, not through pin control I think? We have so many diverse function pointers in the gpiochip, so ability to trigger/test IRQs from software is certainly not a burden. I don't understand the real-world usecase though, please explain what kind of problem this is trying to overcome? Why does this pi330532 driver need to do that, why can it not just inform the driver that needs this interrupt that it should wake up, e.g by using a notification or just an open-coded function call or whatever? Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Zheng, Qi <qi.zheng@intel.com> wrote: > The "pi330532" device on Broxton requires this function to manually > trigger an GPIO input interrupt. (...) > We have gone through this requirement from CHT to BXT, there was no > other better way to simulate the GPIO interrupt for the use of those devices. > I what you want is to trigger IRQs on GPIO lines using software we need to add that to the GPIOlib subsystem, so this register gets accessed from the GPIO side of things, not through pin control I think? We have pinctrl control map locally. The RX inversion is implemented by pinctrl control calls, pinctrl_pm_select_default_state and pinctrl_pm_select_sleep_state. > We have so many diverse function pointers in the gpiochip, so ability to trigger/test IRQs from software is certainly not a burden. > I don't understand the real-world usecase though, please explain what kind of problem this is trying to overcome? Why does this > pi330532 driver need to do that, why can it not just inform the driver that needs this interrupt that it should wake up, e.g by using a notification or just an open-coded function call or whatever? According to the pi330532 driver owner, " we needed this support to simulate the HPD interrupt behavior as we don’t have dedicated interrupt line for Type-C DP HPD. We don’t have any notifications mechasism b/w USB and display/Gfx stack and also not the ideal way to handle. HPD toggling is the preferred approach suggested by VPG and HW teams to meet timing requirements also. static void hpd_trigger(struct pi3usb30532_mux *chip, int state) { dev_info(&chip->client->dev, "[HPD trigger] state : %d\n", state); if (state) pinctrl_pm_select_default_state(chip->dev); else pinctrl_pm_select_sleep_state(chip->dev); } " Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Zheng, Qi <qi.zheng@intel.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Zheng, Qi <qi.zheng@intel.com> wrote: > >> The "pi330532" device on Broxton requires this function to manually >> trigger an GPIO input interrupt. > (...) >> We have gone through this requirement from CHT to BXT, there was no >> other better way to simulate the GPIO interrupt for the use of those devices. > >> I what you want is to trigger IRQs on GPIO lines using software we >> need to add that to the GPIOlib subsystem, so this register gets accessed >> from the GPIO side of things, not through pin control I think? > > We have pinctrl control map locally. > The RX inversion is implemented by pinctrl control calls, pinctrl_pm_select_default_state > and pinctrl_pm_select_sleep_state. > >> We have so many diverse function pointers in the gpiochip, so ability to >> trigger/test IRQs from software is certainly not a burden. > >> I don't understand the real-world usecase though, please explain what kind of problem >> this is trying to overcome? Why does this pi330532 driver need to do that, why can >> it not just inform the driver that needs this interrupt that it should wake up, e.g by >> using a notification or just an open-coded function call or whatever? > > According to the pi330532 driver owner, > " > we needed this support to simulate the HPD interrupt behavior as we don’t have > dedicated interrupt line for Type-C DP HPD. - What is a HPD interrupt? - What is a Type-C DP HPD? - Again why can't you just use a notifier or function call? > We don’t have any notifications mechasism b/w USB and display/Gfx stack and > also not the ideal way to handle. HPD toggling is the preferred approach suggested > by VPG and HW teams to meet timing requirements also. What is VPG? Now it seems Intel's internal organization is being used as part of the argument to get this change in and that makes me a bit annoyed. If there is no good notification mechanism then implement one instead of starting to software-generate hardware interrupts. I also start to get the feeling that these USB and display stacks you are referring to are not the upstream versions. > static void hpd_trigger(struct pi3usb30532_mux *chip, int state) > { > dev_info(&chip->client->dev, "[HPD trigger] state : %d\n", state); > > if (state) > pinctrl_pm_select_default_state(chip->dev); > else > pinctrl_pm_select_sleep_state(chip->dev); > } Can we get the *TECHNICAL* explanation of why this thing needs to be done instead of using a notifier or function call? Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 01:27:49PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 3:17 AM, Zheng, Qi <qi.zheng@intel.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Zheng, Qi <qi.zheng@intel.com> wrote: > > > >> The "pi330532" device on Broxton requires this function to manually > >> trigger an GPIO input interrupt. > > (...) > >> We have gone through this requirement from CHT to BXT, there was no > >> other better way to simulate the GPIO interrupt for the use of those devices. > > > >> I what you want is to trigger IRQs on GPIO lines using software we > >> need to add that to the GPIOlib subsystem, so this register gets accessed > >> from the GPIO side of things, not through pin control I think? > > > > We have pinctrl control map locally. > > The RX inversion is implemented by pinctrl control calls, pinctrl_pm_select_default_state > > and pinctrl_pm_select_sleep_state. > > > >> We have so many diverse function pointers in the gpiochip, so ability to > >> trigger/test IRQs from software is certainly not a burden. > > > >> I don't understand the real-world usecase though, please explain what kind of problem > >> this is trying to overcome? Why does this pi330532 driver need to do that, why can > >> it not just inform the driver that needs this interrupt that it should wake up, e.g by > >> using a notification or just an open-coded function call or whatever? > > > > According to the pi330532 driver owner, > > " > > we needed this support to simulate the HPD interrupt behavior as we don’t have > > dedicated interrupt line for Type-C DP HPD. > > - What is a HPD interrupt? hotplug interrupt, fires when you plug in a cable. > - What is a Type-C DP HPD? usb type C connector can multiplex both DisplayPort and USB, you need to renegotiate the lane splitting every time the sink changes, i.e. on each hotplug. > - Again why can't you just use a notifier or function call? Because windows sucks, hence all that coordination happens through hw forwarded interrupts and magic registers. Same horror story on the sound side, where the sound driver needs to know what kind of PCM stream the monitor can take. It's hilarious. Except when they screw up the design and then need to fake parts of it in software. In sound we've switched over to a proper sw interface, and we tie the different parts (drm graphics driver and alsa snd driver) using the component.c framework. > > We don’t have any notifications mechasism b/w USB and display/Gfx stack and > > also not the ideal way to handle. HPD toggling is the preferred approach suggested > > by VPG and HW teams to meet timing requirements also. > > What is VPG? Now it seems Intel's internal organization is being used as > part of the argument to get this change in and that makes me a bit > annoyed. > > If there is no good notification mechanism then implement one instead > of starting to software-generate hardware interrupts. > > I also start to get the feeling that these USB and display stacks > you are referring to are not the upstream versions. There was chat of usb type C support for forever, but I was always promised that we don't need any interactions on the sw side and it's all magic in hw. There hasn't been any real design discussions in the open source group. VPG is the hw/windows group and generally comes up with "interesting" designs not suitable for upstream. Feel free to just nack this stuff, and please cc intel-gfx/dri-devel in the future (since I tend to ignore everything that's not cc'ed to mailing lists I don't care about, even when I'm on cc personally). I've added them all to cc. Cheers, Daniel > > static void hpd_trigger(struct pi3usb30532_mux *chip, int state) > > { > > dev_info(&chip->client->dev, "[HPD trigger] state : %d\n", state); > > > > if (state) > > pinctrl_pm_select_default_state(chip->dev); > > else > > pinctrl_pm_select_sleep_state(chip->dev); > > } > > Can we get the *TECHNICAL* explanation of why this thing needs > to be done instead of using a notifier or function call? > > Yours, > Linus Walleij
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 01:27:49PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: >> - What is a HPD interrupt? > > hotplug interrupt, fires when you plug in a cable. > >> - What is a Type-C DP HPD? > > usb type C connector can multiplex both DisplayPort and USB, you need to > renegotiate the lane splitting every time the sink changes, i.e. on each > hotplug. OK I understand, thanks a lot! >> - Again why can't you just use a notifier or function call? > > Because windows sucks, hence all that coordination happens through hw > forwarded interrupts and magic registers. Same horror story on the sound > side, where the sound driver needs to know what kind of PCM stream the > monitor can take. It's hilarious. Except when they screw up the design and > then need to fake parts of it in software. So the story is something like that these IRQs have been put into hardware in order to compensate for flaws in Windows device driver model, I see. If there are such special registers in some hardware I guess I'm all for implementing some generic quirk in gpiolib for people who need to software-trigger GPIO IRQs. Could be good for testing too, as there are such registers in ARMs PL061 GPIO controller for test, just so as to simulate a GPIO IRQ. gpiod_trig_irq() would work with me, I'm happy to support whatever the GPIO hardware can do usually. > In sound we've switched over to a proper sw interface, and we tie the > different parts (drm graphics driver and alsa snd driver) using the > component.c framework. Hm is that solution or something similar proper for USB connector as well I wonder... I was thinking about just adding $random_notifier but maybe that is a bit ugly :/ >> What is VPG? Now it seems Intel's internal organization is being used as >> part of the argument to get this change in and that makes me a bit >> annoyed. (...) > There was chat of usb type C support for forever, but I was always > promised that we don't need any interactions on the sw side and it's all > magic in hw. There hasn't been any real design discussions in the open > source group. VPG is the hw/windows group and generally comes up with > "interesting" designs not suitable for upstream. > > Feel free to just nack this stuff, and please cc intel-gfx/dri-devel in > the future (since I tend to ignore everything that's not cc'ed to mailing > lists I don't care about, even when I'm on cc personally). I've added them > all to cc. Thanks a lot Daniel, I understand better now. I'm not really against adding this "interesting" workaround if that is how Windows works, we usually have to go by their standards. From the GPIO point of view it is OK, just something the GPIO can do. I would be more worried about what the USB PHY maintainer (Felipe) is going to say about this. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch> wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 01:27:49PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > >>> - What is a HPD interrupt? >> >> hotplug interrupt, fires when you plug in a cable. >> >>> - What is a Type-C DP HPD? >> >> usb type C connector can multiplex both DisplayPort and USB, you need to >> renegotiate the lane splitting every time the sink changes, i.e. on each >> hotplug. > > OK I understand, thanks a lot! > >>> - Again why can't you just use a notifier or function call? >> >> Because windows sucks, hence all that coordination happens through hw >> forwarded interrupts and magic registers. Same horror story on the sound >> side, where the sound driver needs to know what kind of PCM stream the >> monitor can take. It's hilarious. Except when they screw up the design and >> then need to fake parts of it in software. > > So the story is something like that these IRQs have been put into > hardware in order to compensate for flaws in Windows device driver > model, I see. > > If there are such special registers in some hardware I guess I'm all for > implementing some generic quirk in gpiolib for people who need to > software-trigger GPIO IRQs. Could be good for testing too, as there > are such registers in ARMs PL061 GPIO controller for test, just so as > to simulate a GPIO IRQ. > > gpiod_trig_irq() would work with me, I'm happy to support whatever > the GPIO hardware can do usually. > >> In sound we've switched over to a proper sw interface, and we tie the >> different parts (drm graphics driver and alsa snd driver) using the >> component.c framework. > > Hm is that solution or something similar proper for USB connector > as well I wonder... I was thinking about just adding $random_notifier > but maybe that is a bit ugly :/ > >>> What is VPG? Now it seems Intel's internal organization is being used as >>> part of the argument to get this change in and that makes me a bit >>> annoyed. > (...) >> There was chat of usb type C support for forever, but I was always >> promised that we don't need any interactions on the sw side and it's all >> magic in hw. There hasn't been any real design discussions in the open >> source group. VPG is the hw/windows group and generally comes up with >> "interesting" designs not suitable for upstream. >> >> Feel free to just nack this stuff, and please cc intel-gfx/dri-devel in >> the future (since I tend to ignore everything that's not cc'ed to mailing >> lists I don't care about, even when I'm on cc personally). I've added them >> all to cc. > > Thanks a lot Daniel, I understand better now. I'm not really against > adding this "interesting" workaround if that is how Windows works, > we usually have to go by their standards. From the GPIO point > of view it is OK, just something the GPIO can do. I would be more > worried about what the USB PHY maintainer (Felipe) is going to say > about this. Adding Felipe's current address. Considering the new domain part of the address, I'm hopeful we can sort this out. ;) BR, Jani. > > Yours, > Linus Walleij > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org > https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c b/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c index 85536b4..ded5378 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.c @@ -472,6 +472,14 @@ static int intel_config_get(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned pin, break; + case PIN_CONF_INTEL_INV_RX: + value = intel_get_padcfg(pctrl, pin, PADCFG0); + if (value & PADCFG0_RXINV) + arg = 1; + else + arg = 0; + break; + default: return -ENOTSUPP; } @@ -549,6 +557,38 @@ static int intel_config_set_pull(struct intel_pinctrl *pctrl, unsigned pin, return ret; } + +static int intel_config_set_misc(struct intel_pinctrl *pctrl, unsigned pin, + unsigned long config) +{ + unsigned param = pinconf_to_config_param(config); + unsigned arg = pinconf_to_config_argument(config); + void __iomem *padcfg0; + unsigned long flags; + int ret = 0; + u32 value; + + spin_lock_irqsave(&pctrl->lock, flags); + + padcfg0 = intel_get_padcfg(pctrl, pin, PADCFG0); + value = readl(padcfg0); + + if (param == PIN_CONF_INTEL_INV_RX) { + if (arg) + value |= PADCFG0_RXINV; + else + value &= ~PADCFG0_RXINV; + } else + ret = -EINVAL; + + if (!ret) + writel(value, padcfg0); + + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pctrl->lock, flags); + + return ret; +} + static int intel_config_set(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned pin, unsigned long *configs, unsigned nconfigs) { @@ -567,6 +607,11 @@ static int intel_config_set(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev, unsigned pin, if (ret) return ret; break; + case PIN_CONF_INTEL_INV_RX: + ret = intel_config_set_misc(pctrl, pin, configs[i]); + if (ret) + return ret; + break; default: return -ENOTSUPP; diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.h b/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.h index b602157..51f9076 100644 --- a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.h +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/intel/pinctrl-intel.h @@ -18,6 +18,14 @@ struct platform_device; struct device; /** +* customized pinconf configurations +* @PIN_CONF_INTEL_INV_RX: this will invert the RX pad state before it is +* sent to the GPIO-to-IOxAPIC, GPE/SCI, SMI, NMI logic or GPI_IS[n] +* that is using it. +*/ +#define PIN_CONF_INTEL_INV_RX (PIN_CONFIG_END + 1) + +/** * struct intel_pingroup - Description about group of pins * @name: Name of the groups * @pins: All pins in this group