Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: at91: choose appropriate handler for level interrupts
On 29/07/2013 17:42, Linus Walleij : On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Boris BREZILLON wrote: The current implementation handle both edge and level interrupts with the 'handle_simple_irq' handler. Level interrupts are active as long as the pin stays at the configured level (low or high). In this case we have to use 'handle_level_irq' which mask the interrupt until the handle has treated it. Signed-off-by: Boris BREZILLON Nicolas/Jean-Christophe: any opinion on this patch? Back online: Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre (maybe too late though) Thanks for fixing this. Bye, I am tempted to just apply it and see if you react to it :-) Yours, Linus Walleij -- Nicolas Ferre -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: at91: choose appropriate handler for level interrupts
On 07/08/2013 20:59, Linus Walleij wrote: On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Boris BREZILLON wrote: The current implementation handle both edge and level interrupts with the 'handle_simple_irq' handler. Level interrupts are active as long as the pin stays at the configured level (low or high). In this case we have to use 'handle_level_irq' which mask the interrupt until the handle has treated it. Signed-off-by: Boris BREZILLON Patch applied with Alexandre's Tested-by tag. Thanks Worst thing that can happen is that I have to revert it. Now it will atleast get some testing in linux-next. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: at91: choose appropriate handler for level interrupts
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Boris BREZILLON wrote: > The current implementation handle both edge and level interrupts with the > 'handle_simple_irq' handler. > > Level interrupts are active as long as the pin stays at the configured > level (low or high). In this case we have to use 'handle_level_irq' which > mask the interrupt until the handle has treated it. > > Signed-off-by: Boris BREZILLON Patch applied with Alexandre's Tested-by tag. Worst thing that can happen is that I have to revert it. Now it will atleast get some testing in linux-next. Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: at91: choose appropriate handler for level interrupts
On 01/08/2013 13:04, Alexandre Belloni wrote: Hi, On 20/07/2013 16:51, Boris BREZILLON wrote: The current implementation handle both edge and level interrupts with the 'handle_simple_irq' handler. Level interrupts are active as long as the pin stays at the configured level (low or high). In this case we have to use 'handle_level_irq' which mask the interrupt until the handle has treated it. Signed-off-by: Boris BREZILLON This solves the issue on my side. Tested-by: Alexandre Belloni Thanks -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: at91: choose appropriate handler for level interrupts
Hi, On 20/07/2013 16:51, Boris BREZILLON wrote: > The current implementation handle both edge and level interrupts with the > 'handle_simple_irq' handler. > > Level interrupts are active as long as the pin stays at the configured > level (low or high). In this case we have to use 'handle_level_irq' which > mask the interrupt until the handle has treated it. > > Signed-off-by: Boris BREZILLON This solves the issue on my side. Tested-by: Alexandre Belloni -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: at91: choose appropriate handler for level interrupts
On 29/07/2013 17:42, Linus Walleij wrote: On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Boris BREZILLON wrote: The current implementation handle both edge and level interrupts with the 'handle_simple_irq' handler. Level interrupts are active as long as the pin stays at the configured level (low or high). In this case we have to use 'handle_level_irq' which mask the interrupt until the handle has treated it. Signed-off-by: Boris BREZILLON Nicolas/Jean-Christophe: any opinion on this patch? I am tempted to just apply it and see if you react to it :-) Hello, Just for clarification, without this patch the kernel hangs if you request a threaded irq on level state (low or high). This was tested on sama5ek board. Best Regards, Boris Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: at91: choose appropriate handler for level interrupts
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Boris BREZILLON wrote: > The current implementation handle both edge and level interrupts with the > 'handle_simple_irq' handler. > > Level interrupts are active as long as the pin stays at the configured > level (low or high). In this case we have to use 'handle_level_irq' which > mask the interrupt until the handle has treated it. > > Signed-off-by: Boris BREZILLON Nicolas/Jean-Christophe: any opinion on this patch? I am tempted to just apply it and see if you react to it :-) Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH] pinctrl: at91: choose appropriate handler for level interrupts
The current implementation handle both edge and level interrupts with the
'handle_simple_irq' handler.
Level interrupts are active as long as the pin stays at the configured
level (low or high). In this case we have to use 'handle_level_irq' which
mask the interrupt until the handle has treated it.
Signed-off-by: Boris BREZILLON
---
drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c | 16 ++--
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c
index 5d7529e..76e108d 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c
@@ -1241,18 +1241,22 @@ static int alt_gpio_irq_type(struct irq_data *d,
unsigned type)
switch (type) {
case IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING:
+ irq_set_handler(d->irq, handle_simple_irq);
writel_relaxed(mask, pio + PIO_ESR);
writel_relaxed(mask, pio + PIO_REHLSR);
break;
case IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING:
+ irq_set_handler(d->irq, handle_simple_irq);
writel_relaxed(mask, pio + PIO_ESR);
writel_relaxed(mask, pio + PIO_FELLSR);
break;
case IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW:
+ irq_set_handler(d->irq, handle_level_irq);
writel_relaxed(mask, pio + PIO_LSR);
writel_relaxed(mask, pio + PIO_FELLSR);
break;
case IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH:
+ irq_set_handler(d->irq, handle_level_irq);
writel_relaxed(mask, pio + PIO_LSR);
writel_relaxed(mask, pio + PIO_REHLSR);
break;
@@ -1261,6 +1265,7 @@ static int alt_gpio_irq_type(struct irq_data *d, unsigned
type)
* disable additional interrupt modes:
* fall back to default behavior
*/
+ irq_set_handler(d->irq, handle_simple_irq);
writel_relaxed(mask, pio + PIO_AIMDR);
return 0;
case IRQ_TYPE_NONE:
@@ -1402,6 +1407,8 @@ static int at91_gpio_irq_map(struct irq_domain *h,
unsigned int virq,
irq_hw_number_t hw)
{
struct at91_gpio_chip *at91_gpio = h->host_data;
+ void __iomem*pio = at91_gpio->regbase;
+ u32 mask = 1 << hw;
irq_set_lockdep_class(virq, &gpio_lock_class);
@@ -1409,8 +1416,13 @@ static int at91_gpio_irq_map(struct irq_domain *h,
unsigned int virq,
* Can use the "simple" and not "edge" handler since it's
* shorter, and the AIC handles interrupts sanely.
*/
- irq_set_chip_and_handler(virq, &gpio_irqchip,
-handle_simple_irq);
+ irq_set_chip(virq, &gpio_irqchip);
+ if ((at91_gpio->ops == &at91sam9x5_ops) &&
+ (readl_relaxed(pio + PIO_AIMMR) & mask) &&
+ (readl_relaxed(pio + PIO_ELSR) & mask))
+ irq_set_handler(virq, handle_level_irq);
+ else
+ irq_set_handler(virq, handle_simple_irq);
set_irq_flags(virq, IRQF_VALID);
irq_set_chip_data(virq, at91_gpio);
--
1.7.9.5
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
