Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip/qcom-pdc: add support for v3.2 HW

["Maulik Shah (mkshah)" <quic_mkshah@quicinc.com>]

Hi Neil,

On 8/23/2023 2:21 PM, neil.armstrong@linaro.org wrote:
> On 23/08/2023 10:25, Maulik Shah (mkshah) wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 8/23/2023 1:16 PM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 23/08/2023 07:35, Maulik Shah (mkshah) wrote:
>>>> Hi Neil,
>>>>
>>>> @@ -142,8 +163,17 @@ static int qcom_pdc_gic_set_type(struct 
>>>> irq_data *d, unsigned int type)
>>>>>           return -EINVAL;
>>>>>       }
>>>>> -    old_pdc_type = pdc_reg_read(IRQ_i_CFG, d->hwirq);
>>>>> -    pdc_reg_write(IRQ_i_CFG, d->hwirq, pdc_type);
>>>>> +    if (pdc_version < PDC_VERSION_3_2) {
>>>>> +        old_pdc_type = pdc_reg_read(IRQ_i_CFG, d->hwirq);
>>>>> +        pdc_reg_write(IRQ_i_CFG, d->hwirq, pdc_type);
>>>>> +    } else {
>>>>> +        u32 val;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +        val = pdc_reg_read(IRQ_i_CFG, d->hwirq);
>>>>> +        old_pdc_type = val & IRQ_i_CFG_TYPE_MASK;
>>>>> +        pdc_reg_write(IRQ_i_CFG, d->hwirq,
>>>>> +                  pdc_type | (val & IRQ_i_CFG_IRQ_ENABLE));
>>>>> +    }
>>>> While above is correct, i don't think we need version check in 
>>>> qcom_pdc_gic_set_type() as bits 0-2 are always for the type in 
>>>> old/new version as mentioned in v1.
>>>>
>>>> Adding one line after reading old_pdc_type should be good enough.
>>>
>>> Yes I understood, but while looking at the IRQ_i_CFG bits, I wanted 
>>> to keep the original
>>> driver behavior intact by setting remaining bits to 0.
>>>
>>> Adding this single line changes that behavior and keeps bits 3-31
>>> to the default register value, which may have some consequences.
>>>
>>> If you consider it's an ok change, then I'll reduce it to this 
>>> single line.
>> Yes this ok change to have single line and should not have  any 
>> consequences.
>
> I also remember why, it's about the final check:
>
> 184         if (old_pdc_type != pdc_type)
> 185                 irq_chip_set_parent_state(d, 
> IRQCHIP_STATE_PENDING, false);
>
> We need to strip out remaining bits of old_pdc_type of this won't work as
> expected, so I'll change it to :
>
> +       old_pdc_type = pdc_reg_read(IRQ_i_CFG, d->hwirq);
> +       pdc_type |= (old_pdc_type & ~IRQ_i_CFG_TYPE_MASK);
> +       old_pdc_type &= IRQ_i_CFG_TYPE_MASK;
> +       pdc_reg_write(IRQ_i_CFG, d->hwirq, pdc_type);
>
> Is it ok for you ?

No.

         old_pdc_type = pdc_reg_read(IRQ_i_CFG, d->hwirq);

+       pdc_type |= (old_pdc_type & ~IRQ_i_CFG_TYPE_MASK);

Adding above suggested single line is sufficient to make final check 
properly compare both old_pdc_type and new pdc_type, right?

But with your above change, It will end up comparing only bits 0-2 of 
old_pdc_type with updated pdc_type (which just got the other bits (3 to 
31) of IRQ_i_CFG register by the ORing it with old_pdc_type).

Thanks,
Maulik