Commit 4079d35f authored by Douglas Anderson's avatar Douglas Anderson Committed by Linus Walleij

pinctrl: qcom: No need to read-modify-write the interrupt status

When the Qualcomm pinctrl driver wants to Ack an interrupt, it does a
read-modify-write on the interrupt status register.  On some SoCs it
makes sure that the status bit is 1 to "Ack" and on others it makes
sure that the bit is 0 to "Ack".  Presumably the first type of
interrupt controller is a "write 1 to clear" type register and the
second just let you directly set the interrupt status register.

As far as I can tell from scanning structure definitions, the
interrupt status bit is always in a register by itself.  Thus with
both types of interrupt controllers it is safe to "Ack" interrupts
without doing a read-modify-write.  We can do a simple write.

It should be noted that if the interrupt status bit _was_ ever in a
register with other things (like maybe status bits for other GPIOs):
a) For "write 1 clear" type controllers then read-modify-write would
   be totally wrong because we'd accidentally end up clearing
   interrupts we weren't looking at.
b) For "direct set" type controllers then read-modify-write would also
   be wrong because someone setting one of the other bits in the
   register might accidentally clear (or set) our interrupt.
I say this simply to show that the current read-modify-write doesn't
provide any sort of "future proofing" of the code.  In fact (for
"write 1 clear" controllers) the new code is slightly more "future
proof" since it would allow more than one interrupt status bits to
share a register.

NOTE: this code fixes no bugs--it simply avoids an extra register
read.
Signed-off-by: default avatarDouglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: default avatarMaulik Shah <mkshah@codeaurora.org>
Tested-by: default avatarMaulik Shah <mkshah@codeaurora.org>
Reviewed-by: default avatarStephen Boyd <swboyd@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: default avatarBjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210114191601.v7.2.I3635de080604e1feda770591c5563bd6e63dd39d@changeidSigned-off-by: default avatarLinus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
parent a82e5378
......@@ -791,16 +791,13 @@ 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.
*/
val = msm_readl_intr_status(pctrl, g);
val &= ~BIT(g->intr_status_bit);
msm_writel_intr_status(val, pctrl, g);
}
/*
* clear the interrupt status bit before unmask to avoid
* any erroneous interrupts that would have got latched
* when the interrupt is not in use.
*/
if (status_clear)
msm_writel_intr_status(0, pctrl, g);
val = msm_readl_intr_cfg(pctrl, g);
val |= BIT(g->intr_raw_status_bit);
......@@ -905,11 +902,7 @@ static void msm_gpio_irq_ack(struct irq_data *d)
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&pctrl->lock, flags);
val = msm_readl_intr_status(pctrl, g);
if (g->intr_ack_high)
val |= BIT(g->intr_status_bit);
else
val &= ~BIT(g->intr_status_bit);
val = g->intr_ack_high ? BIT(g->intr_status_bit) : 0;
msm_writel_intr_status(val, pctrl, g);
if (test_bit(d->hwirq, pctrl->dual_edge_irqs))
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment