| Message ID | 1443209283-20781-3-git-send-email-grygorii.strashko@ti.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> wrote: > This patch converts TI OMAP GPIO driver to use generic irq handler > instead of chained IRQ handler. This way OMAP GPIO driver will be > compatible with RT kernel where it will be forced thread IRQ handler > while in non-RT kernel it still will be executed in HW IRQ context. > As part of this change the IRQ wakeup configuration is applied to > GPIO Bank IRQ as it now will be under control of IRQ PM Core during > suspend. > > There are also additional benefits: > - on-RT kernel there will be no complains any more about PM runtime usage > in atomic context "BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context"; > - GPIO bank IRQs will appear in /proc/interrupts and its usage statistic > will be visible; > - GPIO bank IRQs could be configured through IRQ proc_fs interface and, > as result, could be a part of IRQ balancing process if needed; > - GPIO bank IRQs will be under control of IRQ PM Core during > suspend to RAM. > > Disadvantage: > - additional runtime overhed as call chain till > omap_gpio_irq_handler() will be longer now > - necessity to use wa_lock in omap_gpio_irq_handler() to W/A warning > in handle_irq_event_percpu() > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 35 at kernel/irq/handle.c:149 handle_irq_event_percpu+0x51c/0x638() > > This patch doesn't fully follows recommendations provided by Sebastian > Andrzej Siewior [1], because It's required to go through and check all > GPIO IRQ pin states as fast as possible and pass control to handle_level_irq > or handle_edge_irq. handle_level_irq or handle_edge_irq will perform actions > specific for IRQ triggering type and wakeup corresponding registered > threaded IRQ handler (at least it's expected to be threaded). > IRQs can be lost if handle_nested_irq() will be used, because excecution > time of some pin specific GPIO IRQ handler can be very significant and > require accessing ext. devices (I2C). > > Idea of such kind reworking was also discussed in [2]. > > [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg120665.html > [2] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg119516.html > > Tested-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> > Tested-by: Austin Schuh <austin@peloton-tech.com> > Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> Patch applied. I'm thinking that we need some recommendations on how to write IRQ handlers in order to be RT-compatible. Can you help me lining up the requirements in Documentation/gpio/driver.txt? I will write an RFC patch and let you write some additional text to it in response then we can iterate it a bit. 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 10/02/2015 03:17 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Grygorii Strashko > <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> wrote: > >> This patch converts TI OMAP GPIO driver to use generic irq handler >> instead of chained IRQ handler. This way OMAP GPIO driver will be >> compatible with RT kernel where it will be forced thread IRQ handler >> while in non-RT kernel it still will be executed in HW IRQ context. >> As part of this change the IRQ wakeup configuration is applied to >> GPIO Bank IRQ as it now will be under control of IRQ PM Core during >> suspend. >> >> There are also additional benefits: >> - on-RT kernel there will be no complains any more about PM runtime usage >> in atomic context "BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context"; >> - GPIO bank IRQs will appear in /proc/interrupts and its usage statistic >> will be visible; >> - GPIO bank IRQs could be configured through IRQ proc_fs interface and, >> as result, could be a part of IRQ balancing process if needed; >> - GPIO bank IRQs will be under control of IRQ PM Core during >> suspend to RAM. >> >> Disadvantage: >> - additional runtime overhed as call chain till >> omap_gpio_irq_handler() will be longer now >> - necessity to use wa_lock in omap_gpio_irq_handler() to W/A warning >> in handle_irq_event_percpu() >> WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 35 at kernel/irq/handle.c:149 handle_irq_event_percpu+0x51c/0x638() >> >> This patch doesn't fully follows recommendations provided by Sebastian >> Andrzej Siewior [1], because It's required to go through and check all >> GPIO IRQ pin states as fast as possible and pass control to handle_level_irq >> or handle_edge_irq. handle_level_irq or handle_edge_irq will perform actions >> specific for IRQ triggering type and wakeup corresponding registered >> threaded IRQ handler (at least it's expected to be threaded). >> IRQs can be lost if handle_nested_irq() will be used, because excecution >> time of some pin specific GPIO IRQ handler can be very significant and >> require accessing ext. devices (I2C). >> >> Idea of such kind reworking was also discussed in [2]. >> >> [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg120665.html >> [2] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg119516.html >> >> Tested-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> >> Tested-by: Austin Schuh <austin@peloton-tech.com> >> Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> > > Patch applied. > Thanks. > I'm thinking that we need some recommendations on how to write > IRQ handlers in order to be RT-compatible. Can you help me lining > up the requirements in Documentation/gpio/driver.txt? > > I will write an RFC patch and let you write some additional text > to it in response then we can iterate it a bit. Sure. I'll try to help.
Grygorii, can you please provide a patch set against 4.1-RT? That stuff rejects left and right. Thanks, tglx -- 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
Hi Thomas, On 10/12/2015 10:52 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Grygorii, > > can you please provide a patch set against 4.1-RT? That stuff rejects > left and right. > This is really not easy thing to do :( and I don't know how to do it the best way. This patches are based on top of big set of other patches. As result we've back-ported mostly all GPIO patches from upstream kernel to TI's 4.1 kernel to keep things consistent and avoid complicated conflicts during back-porting of fixes. The branch linux-4.1.y-rt is continuously merged in TI's 4.1 rt-kernel. So, on top of linux-4.1.y there is below set of patches in TI's kernel now: *bc6b549 gpio: omap: convert to use generic irq handler *d8b79f8 gpio: omap: move pm runtime in irq_chip.irq_bus_lock/sync_unlock c5d9d80 gpio: omap: fix static checker warning 8e3f97d gpio: omap: Fix GPIO numbering for deferred probe a5fafaa gpio: omap: Fix gpiochip_add() handling for deferred probe *a79afac gpio: omap: fix clk_prepare/unprepare usage *e967fb8 gpio: omap: protect regs access in omap_gpio_irq_handler 7f66a45 gpio: omap: fix omap2_set_gpio_debounce 225b622 gpio: omap: switch to use platform_get_irq 4ad92d9 gpio: omap: remove wrong irq_domain_remove usage in probe f76691a gpio: omap: Fix missing raw locks conversion *97e1a2c gpio: omap: use raw locks for locking 7a74d02 ARM: OMAP2: Drop the concept of certain power domains not being able to lose context. 76281a5 gpio: omap: prevent module from being unloaded while in use 7aa88c9 gpio: omap: add missed spin_unlock_irqrestore in omap_gpio_irq_type 79d3bc2 gpio: omap: rework omap_gpio_irq_startup to handle current pin state properly 81dcc40 gpio: omap: rework omap_gpio_request to touch only gpio specific registers e44665c gpio: omap: rework omap_x_irq_shutdown to touch only irqs specific registers 23c487f gpio: omap: fix error handling in omap_gpio_irq_type b328dfc gpio: omap: fix omap_gpio_free to not clean up irq configuration 2966641 gpio: omap: Allow building as a loadable module I'd very appreciate for any advice of how to better proceed with your request. - I can try to apply and re-send only patches marked by '*' - I can prepare branch with all above patches - smth. else
Grygorii, On Tue, 13 Oct 2015, Grygorii Strashko wrote: > I'd very appreciate for any advice of how to better proceed with your request. > - I can try to apply and re-send only patches marked by '*' > - I can prepare branch with all above patches Please provide a branch on top of 4.1.10 which contains the whole lot. I have a look at it and decide then how to go from there. Thanks, tglx -- 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
Hi Thomas, On 10/13/2015 09:33 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Grygorii, > > On Tue, 13 Oct 2015, Grygorii Strashko wrote: >> I'd very appreciate for any advice of how to better proceed with your request. >> - I can try to apply and re-send only patches marked by '*' >> - I can prepare branch with all above patches > > Please provide a branch on top of 4.1.10 which contains the whole > lot. I have a look at it and decide then how to go from there. I've prepared branch linux-4.1.10-ti-gpio: in git@git.ti.com:~gragst/ti-linux-kernel/gragsts-ti-linux-kernel.git based on top of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git branch : linux-4.1.y commit : 27f1b7f Linux 4.1.10 Also, I've tried to merge it in linux-4.1.y-rt and found that merge can be done without merge conflicts if below patch is reverted: " Revert "gpio: omap: use raw locks for locking" This reverts commit 26dc4f70eb09ff7d36b1e6cd720e65b3c69098ae "
* Grygorii Strashko | 2015-10-15 19:33:43 [+0300]: >Hi Thomas, > >On 10/13/2015 09:33 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>Grygorii, >> >>On Tue, 13 Oct 2015, Grygorii Strashko wrote: >>>I'd very appreciate for any advice of how to better proceed with your request. >>> - I can try to apply and re-send only patches marked by '*' >>> - I can prepare branch with all above patches >> >>Please provide a branch on top of 4.1.10 which contains the whole >>lot. I have a look at it and decide then how to go from there. > >I've prepared branch linux-4.1.10-ti-gpio: >in git@git.ti.com:~gragst/ti-linux-kernel/gragsts-ti-linux-kernel.git could you please provide a git URL for that? >based on top of > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git > branch : linux-4.1.y > commit : 27f1b7f Linux 4.1.10 Sebastian -- 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 12/11/2015 06:57 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > * Grygorii Strashko | 2015-10-15 19:33:43 [+0300]: > >> Hi Thomas, >> >> On 10/13/2015 09:33 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> Grygorii, >>> >>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015, Grygorii Strashko wrote: >>>> I'd very appreciate for any advice of how to better proceed with your request. >>>> - I can try to apply and re-send only patches marked by '*' >>>> - I can prepare branch with all above patches >>> >>> Please provide a branch on top of 4.1.10 which contains the whole >>> lot. I have a look at it and decide then how to go from there. >> >> I've prepared branch linux-4.1.10-ti-gpio: >> in git@git.ti.com:~gragst/ti-linux-kernel/gragsts-ti-linux-kernel.git > > could you please provide a git URL for that? git://git.ti.com/~gragst/ti-linux-kernel/gragsts-ti-linux-kernel.git >> based on top of >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git >> branch : linux-4.1.y >> commit : 27f1b7f Linux 4.1.10 >
* Grygorii Strashko | 2015-12-12 10:30:10 [+0200]:
>git://git.ti.com/~gragst/ti-linux-kernel/gragsts-ti-linux-kernel.git
sucked in, thanks.
Sebastian
--
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
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c index a254691..376827f 100644 --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ struct gpio_bank { u32 level_mask; u32 toggle_mask; raw_spinlock_t lock; + raw_spinlock_t wa_lock; struct gpio_chip chip; struct clk *dbck; u32 mod_usage; @@ -649,8 +650,13 @@ static int omap_gpio_wake_enable(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int enable) { struct gpio_bank *bank = omap_irq_data_get_bank(d); unsigned offset = d->hwirq; + int ret; + + ret = omap_set_gpio_wakeup(bank, offset, enable); + if (!ret) + ret = irq_set_irq_wake(bank->irq, enable); - return omap_set_gpio_wakeup(bank, offset, enable); + return ret; } static int omap_gpio_request(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset) @@ -704,26 +710,21 @@ static void omap_gpio_free(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset) * line's interrupt handler has been run, we may miss some nested * interrupts. */ -static void omap_gpio_irq_handler(struct irq_desc *desc) +static irqreturn_t omap_gpio_irq_handler(int irq, void *gpiobank) { void __iomem *isr_reg = NULL; u32 isr; unsigned int bit; - struct gpio_bank *bank; - int unmasked = 0; - struct irq_chip *irqchip = irq_desc_get_chip(desc); - struct gpio_chip *chip = irq_desc_get_handler_data(desc); + struct gpio_bank *bank = gpiobank; + unsigned long wa_lock_flags; unsigned long lock_flags; - chained_irq_enter(irqchip, desc); - - bank = container_of(chip, struct gpio_bank, chip); isr_reg = bank->base + bank->regs->irqstatus; - pm_runtime_get_sync(bank->dev); - if (WARN_ON(!isr_reg)) goto exit; + pm_runtime_get_sync(bank->dev); + while (1) { u32 isr_saved, level_mask = 0; u32 enabled; @@ -745,13 +746,6 @@ static void omap_gpio_irq_handler(struct irq_desc *desc) raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&bank->lock, lock_flags); - /* if there is only edge sensitive GPIO pin interrupts - configured, we could unmask GPIO bank interrupt immediately */ - if (!level_mask && !unmasked) { - unmasked = 1; - chained_irq_exit(irqchip, desc); - } - if (!isr) break; @@ -772,18 +766,18 @@ static void omap_gpio_irq_handler(struct irq_desc *desc) raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&bank->lock, lock_flags); + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&bank->wa_lock, wa_lock_flags); + generic_handle_irq(irq_find_mapping(bank->chip.irqdomain, bit)); + + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&bank->wa_lock, + wa_lock_flags); } } - /* if bank has any level sensitive GPIO pin interrupt - configured, we must unmask the bank interrupt only after - handler(s) are executed in order to avoid spurious bank - interrupt */ exit: - if (!unmasked) - chained_irq_exit(irqchip, desc); pm_runtime_put(bank->dev); + return IRQ_HANDLED; } static unsigned int omap_gpio_irq_startup(struct irq_data *d) @@ -1135,7 +1129,7 @@ static int omap_gpio_chip_init(struct gpio_bank *bank, struct irq_chip *irqc) } ret = gpiochip_irqchip_add(&bank->chip, irqc, - irq_base, omap_gpio_irq_handler, + irq_base, handle_bad_irq, IRQ_TYPE_NONE); if (ret) { @@ -1144,10 +1138,14 @@ static int omap_gpio_chip_init(struct gpio_bank *bank, struct irq_chip *irqc) return -ENODEV; } - gpiochip_set_chained_irqchip(&bank->chip, irqc, - bank->irq, omap_gpio_irq_handler); + gpiochip_set_chained_irqchip(&bank->chip, irqc, bank->irq, NULL); - return 0; + ret = devm_request_irq(bank->dev, bank->irq, omap_gpio_irq_handler, + 0, dev_name(bank->dev), bank); + if (ret) + gpiochip_remove(&bank->chip); + + return ret; } static const struct of_device_id omap_gpio_match[]; @@ -1229,6 +1227,7 @@ static int omap_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) bank->set_dataout = omap_set_gpio_dataout_mask; raw_spin_lock_init(&bank->lock); + raw_spin_lock_init(&bank->wa_lock); /* Static mapping, never released */ res = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, 0);
This patch converts TI OMAP GPIO driver to use generic irq handler instead of chained IRQ handler. This way OMAP GPIO driver will be compatible with RT kernel where it will be forced thread IRQ handler while in non-RT kernel it still will be executed in HW IRQ context. As part of this change the IRQ wakeup configuration is applied to GPIO Bank IRQ as it now will be under control of IRQ PM Core during suspend. There are also additional benefits: - on-RT kernel there will be no complains any more about PM runtime usage in atomic context "BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context"; - GPIO bank IRQs will appear in /proc/interrupts and its usage statistic will be visible; - GPIO bank IRQs could be configured through IRQ proc_fs interface and, as result, could be a part of IRQ balancing process if needed; - GPIO bank IRQs will be under control of IRQ PM Core during suspend to RAM. Disadvantage: - additional runtime overhed as call chain till omap_gpio_irq_handler() will be longer now - necessity to use wa_lock in omap_gpio_irq_handler() to W/A warning in handle_irq_event_percpu() WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 35 at kernel/irq/handle.c:149 handle_irq_event_percpu+0x51c/0x638() This patch doesn't fully follows recommendations provided by Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [1], because It's required to go through and check all GPIO IRQ pin states as fast as possible and pass control to handle_level_irq or handle_edge_irq. handle_level_irq or handle_edge_irq will perform actions specific for IRQ triggering type and wakeup corresponding registered threaded IRQ handler (at least it's expected to be threaded). IRQs can be lost if handle_nested_irq() will be used, because excecution time of some pin specific GPIO IRQ handler can be very significant and require accessing ext. devices (I2C). Idea of such kind reworking was also discussed in [2]. [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg120665.html [2] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg119516.html Tested-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> Tested-by: Austin Schuh <austin@peloton-tech.com> Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com> --- drivers/gpio/gpio-omap.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------ 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)