On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:20:47AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> On 15-11-08 09:10 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:04:38AM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >> On 15-11-08 12:42 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Nov 07, 2015 at 09:55:48PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>> On 15-11-04 10:08 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>> On 15-11-04 04:51 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>> On 15-11-03 11:04 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 03, 2015 at 07:18:37PM -0800, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 15-11-02 07:15 AM, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 11/02/2015 06:23 AM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-01 07:21 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 15-11-01 06:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 15-10-31 08:58 PM, Mathieu Rondonneau wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> irq handlers registered with devm_request_threaded_irq does not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> get
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered when interrupt fires.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The mmc driver uses this (can not load the rootfs).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Only the IPIPE patch is enabled.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the armctrl chipirq is triggering the .ack handler instead so
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> interrupt is happening.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Any suggestion on where I should look? how is this supported by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ipipe layer?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think I might have answered my own question.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Looks like I need to use ipipe_request_irq() instead.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>>>>>> mmmm it is not true, it seems we still need a
> >>>>>>>>>>> ipipe_request_threaded_irq() to call the ackfn, put the handler in
> >>>>>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>>>>> queue and wake up the thread once handler is executed. Or user
> >>>>>>>>>>> will have
> >>>>>>>>>>> to move this functionality into their driver's IRQ handler.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It strangely looks like ipipe_request_irq's idea is similar to
> >>>>>>>>>>> what
> >>>>>>>>>>> request_threaded_irq is already doing (delaying IRQ process
> >>>>>>>>>>> later).
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>>>>> Looks like my bigger problem is that the handler_level_irq is not
> >>>>>>>>>> called. Only the timer handler is called
> >>>>>>>>>> (handler_percpu_devid_irq).
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Which may mean that the regular IRQ top half for that interrupt
> >>>>>>>>> source
> >>>>>>>>> is not connected to the pipeline. You may want to check whether the
> >>>>>>>>> irqchip handling that device's IRQs has been made aware of the
> >>>>>>>>> interrupt
> >>>>>>>>> pipeline.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks for replying Philippe,
> >>>>>>>> This is the think, I did change the arch_irq_default_handler to call
> >>>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> __ipipe_grab_irq and __ipipe_grab_ipi.
> >>>>>>>> Is that what you are referring to when you say "interrupt source is
> >>>>>>>> not
> >>>>>>>> connected to the pipile", that's what __ipipe_grab_xxx does isn't it?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Obviously I am still missing something.
> >>>>>>>> If I use irq_set_chained_handler in the driver then the handler gets
> >>>>>>>> called but it's just replacing the handler_irq by the driver one.
> >>>>>>>> When I use request_irq then it does not call my handler (the
> >>>>>>>> action.handler one).
> >>>>>>>> I will keep looking.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> This is explained here:
> >>>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#GPIOs_as_interrupt_sources
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> and here:
> >>>>>>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Chained handlers have to call ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq instead of
> >>>>>>> generic_handle_irq.
> >>>>>>> And the arch irq handler has to call ipipe_handle_multi_irq or
> >>>>>>> ipipe_handle_multi_ipi instead of handle_IRQ
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks Gilles for the pointers,
> >>>>>> MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER is not enabled for RPI2 (so I did not look at the
> >>>>>> multi_irq_handler section), is it a requirement for the ipipe patch to
> >>>>>> work?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For GPIO I got it to work, but it is easier to me because they have
> >>>>>> their own irqchip.
> >>>>>> It is the arch irq handler that cause me trouble.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Maybe I just have to enable MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER.
> >>>>>> I will play around with it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks again for your feedback, it helps,
> >>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Also confirming that the ipipe_handler_multi_irq and
> >>>>> ipipe_handler_multi_ipi are called properly.
> >>>>> so it looks like the arch irq handler is working as expected.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> it is the handle_level_irq that is not called properly when I use the
> >>>>> request_irq in the driver.
> >>>>> the desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack is called properly but not the
> >>>>> irqaction->handler (that is the handler of my driver) that should have
> >>>>> been triggered by handle_level_irq.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So I think my problem is that handle_level_irq() is not called.
> >>>>> if I register my driver handler with irq_set_chained_handler then
> >>>>> ipipe_handler_multi_irq is still called, but the
> >>>>> desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack does not get called and my driver handle
> >>>>> gets called properly.
> >>>>> In this case, the ipipe is bypassed it seems since if I understand
> >>>>> correctly, the irq_ack is still expected to trigger.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Maybe I am missing a ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq call in an interrupt
> >>>>> handler that gets called before my driver interrupt handler gets a
> >>>>> chance to get called.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have to look at what interrupt happens before mine.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Mathieu
> >>>>
> >>>> more info:
> >>>> 1) interrupt (lets say #I) triggers, the ipipe_dispatch_irq calls the
> >>>> irqchip->mask() which calls ipipe_lock_irq (IPIPE_LOCK_FLAG is now
> >>>> set).
> >>>
> >>> it should not call irqchip->mask, but irqchip->ipipe_ack, which
> >>> should not call ipipe_lock_irq. See for instance the documentation
> >>> about fasteoi irq:
> >>> http://xenomai.org/2014/09/porting-xenomai-dual-kernel-to-a-new-arm-soc/#flow_handler
> >>>
> >>
> >> Gilles, thanks again for you response,
> >> the code (and execution path observed) does not seem to match with what
> >> you are saying (please don't take this the wrong way :)), please help
> >> clarifying. See explanation below:
> >>
> >> From the doc:
> >> "the irq_mask handler should call ipipe_lock_irq before accessing the
> >> interrupt controller registers"
> >> So I did put a ipipe_lock_irq in the irq_mask.
> >
> > The documentation also says:
> > "If the flow handler is “handle_fasteoi_irq” the implementation of
> > the “struct irq_chip” members should be modified:"
> > and
> > an irq_hold handler should be added (when CONFIG_IPIPE is enabled)
> > having the same effect as the irq_mask handler (but without the
> > call to ipipe_lock_irq), and the irq_eoi handler.
> >
> > In which case the irq_hold handler is called upon handling the
> > interrupt.
> >
> > You can not just apply half of what the documentation says and hope
> > to have a working system.
> >
>
> But I don't use handle_fasteoi_irq, I use handle_level_irq.
Exactly my point.
--
Gilles.
https://click-hack.org
_______________________________________________
Xenomai mailing list
[email protected]
http://xenomai.org/mailman/listinfo/xenomai
