On 02/26/2013 05:06 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 02/26/2013 04:01 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>
>> On 02/26/2013 04:44 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 02/26/2013 03:40 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 02/26/2013 04:01 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> I was wondering if the level/edge settings for gpios is working on OMAP.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm adding DT support for an SMSC911x ethernet chip connected to the
>>>>> GPMC for an OMAP3 SoC based board.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the smsc911x driver probe function (smsc911x_drv_probe() in
>>>>> drivers/net/ethernet/smsc/smsc911x.c), a call to request_irq() with
>>>>> the flag IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW is needed because of the wiring on my board.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reading the gpio-omap.txt documentation it says that #interrupt-cells
>>>>> should be <2> and that a value of 8 is "active low level-sensitive".
>>>>>
>>>>> So I tried this:
>>>>>
>>>>> &gpmc {
>>>>> ethernet@5,0 {
>>>>> pinctrl-names = "default";
>>>>> pinctrl-0 = <&smsc911x_pins>;
>>>>> compatible = "smsc,lan9221", "smsc,lan9115";
>>>>> reg = <5 0 0xff>; /* CS5 */
>>>>> interrupt-parent = <&gpio6>;
>>>>> interrupts = <16 8>; /* gpio line 176 */
>>>>> interrupt-names = "smsc911x irq";
>>>>> vmmc-supply = <&vddvario>;
>>>>> vmmc_aux-supply = <&vdd33a>;
>>>>> reg-io-width = <4>;
>>>>>
>>>>> smsc,save-mac-address;
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> Are you requesting the gpio anywhere? If not then this is not going to
>>>> work as-is. This was discussed fairly recently [1] and the conclusion
>>>> was that the gpio needs to be requested before we can use as an interrupt.
>>>
>>> That seems wrong; the GPIO/IRQ driver should handle this internally. The
>>> Ethernet driver shouldn't know/care whether the interrupt it's given is
>>> some form of dedicated interrupt or a GPIO-based interrupt, and even if
>>> it somehow did, there's no irq_to_gpio() any more, so the driver can't
>>> tell which GPIO ID it should request, unless it's given yet another
>>> property to represent this.
>>
>> I agree that ideally this should be handled internally. Did you read the
>> discussion on the thread that I referenced [1]? If you have any thoughts
>> we are open to ideas :-)
>>
>> Cheers
>> Jon
>>
>> [1] http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.omap/92192
>
> Oh, when I clicked that link the first time, all I saw was the patch,
> not any discussion. I guess it must have timed out finding the other
> emails or something.
Actually, I sent a slightly different link the 2nd time to ensure you
saw the thread. So my fault ;-)
> I disagree that the GPIO needs to be requested, and that a custom DT
> property and associated code are needed for that; simply requesting the
> IRQ should be enough to make everything work.
>
> In the Tegra GPIO IRQ driver for example, the irq_set_type irq_chip op
> goes and configures the base GPIO HW to enable the pin as a GPIO, just
> like gpio_request() would. I imagine the OMAP driver can do whatever
> similar action it needs.
Yes that is similar to what the patch in the thread was attempting to
do, but this got shot down.
One issue I see is that by not calling gpio_request, then potentially
you could have someone request a gpio via gpio_request() and someone
trying to use it as an interrupt source via request_irq(). Now obviously
that represents a bug because there is only one physical gpio, but I
gather it is something we need to protect against.
Cheers
Jon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
