Message-ID: <502b39f5-a2b3-5893-da18-47b034f4895d@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Tue, 24 Nov 2020 16:07:04 +0530
From:   Maulik Shah <mkshah@...eaurora.org>
To:     Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:     Srinivas Ramana <sramana@...eaurora.org>,
        Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@...eaurora.org>,
        Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@...eaurora.org>,
        linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] pinctrl: qcom: Clear possible pending irq when
 remuxing GPIOs

Hi Doug,

On 11/24/2020 5:31 AM, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> Conceptually, we can envision the input on Qualcomm SoCs to pass
> through a bunch of blocks between coming into the chip and becoming a
> GPIO interrupt.  From guessing and running a handful of tests, I
> believe that we can represent the state of the world with a drawing
> that looks something like this:
>
>   +-----------------+       +-----------------+       +-----------------+
>   |      INPUT      |  -->  |      PINMUX     |       |    IS_INPUT     |
>   +-----------------+       |                 |  -->  |                 |
>                             | output bogus (?)|       | output bogus (?)|
>                             | if not muxed    |       | if input disab. |
>                             +-----------------+       +-----------------+
>                                                                |
>            +---------------------------------------------------+--> to PDC
>            |
>            V
>   +-----------------+       +-----------------+       +-----------------+
>   | INTR RAW ENABLE |       | DETECTION LOGIC |       | STATUS REGISTER |
>   |                 |       |                 |       |                 |
>   | output bogus (?)|  -->  | maybe handles   |       | latches inputs  |
>   | if disabled     |       | polarity diffs  |  -->  | that are high   |
>   +-----------------+       |                 |       |                 |
>                             | maybe debounces |       | write 1 to clr  |
>                             | level irqs      |       +-----------------+
>                             +-----------------+                |
>                                                                |
>            +---------------------------------------------------+
>            |
>            V
>   +-----------------+
>   |      ENABLE     |
>   |                 |       +-----------------+
>   | nothing passes  |  -->  |   SUMMARY IRQ   |
>   | through if      |       +-----------------+
>   | disabled        |
>   +-----------------+
>
> The above might not be 100% exact, but for the purpose of this
> discussion, the point is that there are a whole bunch of gates and
> transformations on the input before it gets to the circuitry that
> generates interrupts.
>
> As you might guess, if you reconfigure one of the gates in the above
> diagram while the system is configured to detect interrupts things get
> a little wacky.  Specifically it appears that if you gate the input at
> any step it can cause various glitches in the later steps because they
> are still paying attention to their input but their input isn't really
> sane anymore.
>
> I did some poking and I found that I could generate bogus interrupts
> in the system both when muxing away from GPIO mode and also when
> muxing back to GPIO mode.  When configured to use the PDC path for
> generating interrupts I found that if the external input on the GPIO
> was low that I'd get what looked like a rising edge when unmuxing and
> a falling edge when muxing.  When configured away from the PDC path I
> got slightly different glitch interrupts when changing muxing.
>
> These glitches when remuxing matter in reality, not just in theory.
> To be concrete, let's take the special "wakeup_irq" in
> qcom_geni_serial.c as an example.  In sc7180-trogdor.dtsi we configure
> the uart3 to have two pinctrl states, sleep and default, and mux
> between the two during runtime PM and system suspend (see
> geni_se_resources_{on,off}() for more details).  The difference
> between the sleep and default state is that the RX pin is muxed to a
> GPIO during sleep and muxed to the UART otherwise.  When we switch
> between these two states we can generate the glitches talked about
> above because we're configured to look for edges but the transition
> from the gated input (which is bogus) to the real input can look like
> an edge.
>
> Historically the UART case above was handled by the fact that the
> "enable" function in the MSM GPIO driver did an "unmask and clear".
> This relied on the fact that the system happens to have the interrupt
> disabled until suspend time and that it would enable it after the
> pinmux change happened, thus clearing the interrupt.
>
> The historical solution, however, had a few problems.  The first
> problem (that nobody seemed to have tripped) is that we can still get
> bogus interrupts if we remux when the interrupt isn't disabled during
> the muxing and re-enabled after.  The second problem is that it
> violates how I believe that the interrupt enable path is supposed to
> work.
>
> In Linux, if a driver does disable_irq() and later does enable_irq()
> on its interrupt, I believe it's expecting these properties:
> * If an interrupt was pending when the driver disabled then it will
>    still be pending after the driver re-enables.
> * If an edge-triggered interrupt comes in while an interrupt is
>    disabled it should assert when the interrupt is re-enabled.
>
> If you think that the above sounds a lot like the disable_irq() and
> enable_irq() are supposed to be masking/unmasking the interrupt
> instead of disabling/enabling it then you've made an astute
> observation.  Specifically when talking about interrupts, "mask"
> usually means to stop posting interrupts but keep tracking them and
> "disable" means to fully shut off interrupt detection.  It's
> unfortunate that this is so confusing, but presumably this is all the
> way it is for historical reasons.
>
> Perhaps more confusing than the above is that, even though clients of
> IRQs themselves don't have a way to request mask/unmask
> vs. disable/enable calls, IRQ chips themselves can implement both.
> ...and yet more confusing is that if an IRQ chip implements
> disable/enable then they will be called when a client driver calls
> disable_irq() / enable_irq().
>
> It does feel like some of the above could be cleared up.  However,
> without any other core interrupt changes it should be clear that when
> an IRQ chip gets a request to "disable" an IRQ that it has to treat it
> like a mask of that IRQ.
>
> In any case, after that long interlude you can see that the "unmask
> and clear" can break things.  Maulik tried to fix it so that we no
> longer did "unmask and clear" in commit 71266d9d3936 ("pinctrl: qcom:
> Move clearing pending IRQ to .irq_request_resources callback"), but it
> didn't work for two reasons:
> * It only tried to address the problem for interrupts that had parents
>    (like the PDC).
> * It regressed the problem that the original clearing was trying to
>    solve.
>
> I think we can safely assume that if someone muxes a pin to be
> something other than a GPIO and then muxes it back that we can clear
> any interrupts that were pending on it without violating any
> assumptions that client drivers are making.  Presumably the client
> drivers are intentionally remuxing the pin away from a dedicated
> purpose to be a plain GPIO so they don't care what the pin state was
> before the mux switch and they don't expect to see the pin change
> level during this switch.  Let's move the clearing of the IRQ to the
> pin muxing routine so that we'll clear a pending IRQ if we're muxing
> from some non-GPIO mode to a GPIO mode.
>
> Fixes: 71266d9d3936 ("pinctrl: qcom: Move clearing pending IRQ to .irq_request_resources callback")
> Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
> ---
> This is a pretty hairy little patch and presumably needs a good amount
> of testing / discussion before landing.  If this patch is totally
> broken / wrong feel free to consider it as an RFC and suggest how it
> should be better.
>
> Also note: I wanted to put this in the same series as patch #1, but
> IMO that patch can stand on its own.  If it looks Ok but we want to
> have lots of debate about this one, please land patch #1 on its own
> and we can split the series.
>
> I have done most of this patch testing on the Chrome OS 5.4 kernel
> tree (with many backports) but have sanity checked it on mainline.
>
>   drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c | 104 ++++++++++++++++++-----------
>   1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c
> index 588df91274e2..e7c3927c7d54 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/qcom/pinctrl-msm.c
> @@ -166,14 +166,42 @@ static int msm_get_function_groups(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>   	return 0;
>   }
>   
> +static void msm_pinctrl_clear_pending_irq(struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl,
> +					  unsigned int group,
> +					  unsigned int irq)
> +{
> +	struct irq_data *d = irq_get_irq_data(irq);
> +	const struct msm_pingroup *g;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +	u32 val;
> +
> +	if (!d)
> +		return;
> +
> +	if (d->parent_data && test_bit(d->hwirq, pctrl->skip_wake_irqs))
> +		irq_chip_set_parent_state(d, IRQCHIP_STATE_PENDING, 0);
> +

can you add return here if IRQ has parent PDC?

also replace 0 with false as Marc suggested in patch 1 of this series.

     if (d->parent_data && test_bit(d->hwirq, pctrl->skip_wake_irqs)) {
         irq_chip_set_parent_state(d, IRQCHIP_STATE_PENDING, false);
         return;
     }
> +	g = &pctrl->soc->groups[group];
> +
> +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pctrl->lock, flags);
> +	val = msm_readl_intr_status(pctrl, g);
> +	val &= ~BIT(g->intr_status_bit);
> +	msm_writel_intr_status(val, pctrl, g);
> +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pctrl->lock, flags);
> +}
> +
>   static int msm_pinmux_set_mux(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>   			      unsigned function,
>   			      unsigned group)
>   {
>   	struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl = pinctrl_dev_get_drvdata(pctldev);
> +	struct gpio_chip *gc = &pctrl->chip;
> +	unsigned int irq = irq_find_mapping(gc->irq.domain, group);
>   	const struct msm_pingroup *g;
>   	unsigned long flags;
>   	u32 val, mask;
> +	u32 oldval;
> +	u32 old_i;
>   	int i;
>   
>   	g = &pctrl->soc->groups[group];
> @@ -187,15 +215,26 @@ static int msm_pinmux_set_mux(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev,
>   	if (WARN_ON(i == g->nfuncs))
>   		return -EINVAL;
>   
> -	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pctrl->lock, flags);
> +	disable_irq(irq);
>   
> -	val = msm_readl_ctl(pctrl, g);
> +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pctrl->lock, flags);
> +	oldval = val = msm_readl_ctl(pctrl, g);
>   	val &= ~mask;
>   	val |= i << g->mux_bit;
>   	msm_writel_ctl(val, pctrl, g);
> -
>   	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pctrl->lock, flags);
>   
> +	/*
> +	 * Clear IRQs if switching to/from GPIO mode since muxing to/from
> +	 * the GPIO path can cause phantom edges.
> +	 */
> +	old_i = (oldval & mask) >> g->mux_bit;
> +	if (old_i != i &&
> +	    (i == pctrl->soc->gpio_func || old_i == pctrl->soc->gpio_func))
> +		msm_pinctrl_clear_pending_irq(pctrl, group, irq);

disable_irq() and enable_irq() should be moved inside this if loop. as 
only use for this is to mask the IRQ when switching back to gpio IRQ mode?

i also don't think we should leave IRQ enabled at the end of this 
function by default, probably need to check if IRQ was already unmasked 
before disabling it, then only call enable_irq().

> +
> +	enable_irq(irq);
> +
>   	return 0;
>   }
>   
> @@ -456,32 +495,45 @@ static const struct pinconf_ops msm_pinconf_ops = {
>   static int msm_gpio_direction_input(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset)
>   {
>   	const struct msm_pingroup *g;
> +	unsigned int irq = irq_find_mapping(chip->irq.domain, offset);
>   	struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
>   	unsigned long flags;
> +	u32 oldval;
>   	u32 val;
>   
>   	g = &pctrl->soc->groups[offset];
>   
> +	disable_irq(irq);
> +
>   	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pctrl->lock, flags);
>   
> -	val = msm_readl_ctl(pctrl, g);
> +	oldval = val = msm_readl_ctl(pctrl, g);
>   	val &= ~BIT(g->oe_bit);
>   	msm_writel_ctl(val, pctrl, g);
>   
>   	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pctrl->lock, flags);
>   
> +	if (oldval != val)
> +		msm_pinctrl_clear_pending_irq(pctrl, offset, irq);
> +
> +	enable_irq(irq);

i do not think we need disable_irq() and enable_irq() here, changing 
direction to input does not mean its being used for interrupt only, it 
may be set to use something like Rx mode in UART.

the client driver should enable IRQ when needed.

> +
>   	return 0;
>   }
>   
>   static int msm_gpio_direction_output(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset, int value)
>   {
>   	const struct msm_pingroup *g;
> +	unsigned int irq = irq_find_mapping(chip->irq.domain, offset);
>   	struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl = gpiochip_get_data(chip);
>   	unsigned long flags;
> +	u32 oldval;
>   	u32 val;
>   
>   	g = &pctrl->soc->groups[offset];
>   
> +	disable_irq(irq);
> +
>   	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pctrl->lock, flags);
>   
>   	val = msm_readl_io(pctrl, g);
> @@ -491,12 +543,17 @@ static int msm_gpio_direction_output(struct gpio_chip *chip, unsigned offset, in
>   		val &= ~BIT(g->out_bit);
>   	msm_writel_io(val, pctrl, g);
>   
> -	val = msm_readl_ctl(pctrl, g);
> +	oldval = msm_readl_ctl(pctrl, g);
>   	val |= BIT(g->oe_bit);
>   	msm_writel_ctl(val, pctrl, g);
>   
>   	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pctrl->lock, flags);
>   
> +	if (oldval != val)
> +		msm_pinctrl_clear_pending_irq(pctrl, offset, irq);
> +
> +	enable_irq(irq);
> +
same as above, we changing the direction to output so should not 
enable_irq().
>   	return 0;
>   }
>   
> @@ -774,7 +831,7 @@ static void msm_gpio_irq_mask(struct irq_data *d)
>   	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&pctrl->lock, flags);
>   }
>   
> -static void msm_gpio_irq_clear_unmask(struct irq_data *d, bool status_clear)
> +static void msm_gpio_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *d)
>   {
>   	struct gpio_chip *gc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
>   	struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl = gpiochip_get_data(gc);
> @@ -792,17 +849,6 @@ static void msm_gpio_irq_clear_unmask(struct irq_data *d, bool status_clear)
>   
>   	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pctrl->lock, flags);
>   
> -	if (status_clear) {
> -		/*
> -		 * clear the interrupt status bit before unmask to avoid
> -		 * any erroneous interrupts that would have got latched
> -		 * when the interrupt is not in use.
> -		 */
can you please carry this comment in msm_pinctrl_clear_pending_irq()?
> -		val = msm_readl_intr_status(pctrl, g);
> -		val &= ~BIT(g->intr_status_bit);
> -		msm_writel_intr_status(val, pctrl, g);
> -	}
> -
>   	val = msm_readl_intr_cfg(pctrl, g);
>   	val |= BIT(g->intr_raw_status_bit);
>   	val |= BIT(g->intr_enable_bit);
> @@ -815,14 +861,10 @@ static void msm_gpio_irq_clear_unmask(struct irq_data *d, bool status_clear)
>   
>   static void msm_gpio_irq_enable(struct irq_data *d)
>   {
> -	struct gpio_chip *gc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
> -	struct msm_pinctrl *pctrl = gpiochip_get_data(gc);
> -
>   	if (d->parent_data)
>   		irq_chip_enable_parent(d);
>   
> -	if (!test_bit(d->hwirq, pctrl->skip_wake_irqs))
> -		msm_gpio_irq_clear_unmask(d, true);
> +	msm_gpio_irq_unmask(d);
>   }
>   
>   static void msm_gpio_irq_disable(struct irq_data *d)
> @@ -837,11 +879,6 @@ static void msm_gpio_irq_disable(struct irq_data *d)
>   		msm_gpio_irq_mask(d);
>   }
>   
> -static void msm_gpio_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *d)
> -{
> -	msm_gpio_irq_clear_unmask(d, false);
> -}
> -
>   /**
>    * msm_gpio_update_dual_edge_parent() - Prime next edge for IRQs handled by parent.
>    * @d: The irq dta.
> @@ -1097,19 +1134,6 @@ static int msm_gpio_irq_reqres(struct irq_data *d)
>   		ret = -EINVAL;
>   		goto out;
>   	}
> -
> -	/*
> -	 * Clear the interrupt that may be pending before we enable
> -	 * the line.
> -	 * This is especially a problem with the GPIOs routed to the
> -	 * PDC. These GPIOs are direct-connect interrupts to the GIC.
> -	 * Disabling the interrupt line at the PDC does not prevent
> -	 * the interrupt from being latched at the GIC. The state at
> -	 * GIC needs to be cleared before enabling.
> -	 */
can you please carry this comment in msm_pinctrl_clear_pending_irq()?
> -	if (d->parent_data && test_bit(d->hwirq, pctrl->skip_wake_irqs))
> -		irq_chip_set_parent_state(d, IRQCHIP_STATE_PENDING, 0);
> -
>   	return 0;
>   out:
>   	module_put(gc->owner);

-- 
QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation

Powered by blists - more mailing lists