| Message ID | 1387311361-29411-1-git-send-email-cheiny@synaptics.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hi Chris, On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:16:01PM -0800, Christopher Heiny wrote: > This patch fixes two bugs in handling of the RMI4 attention line GPIO. > > 1) in enable_sensor(), make sure the attn_gpio is defined before attempting to > get its value. > > 2) in rmi_driver_probe(), declare the name of the attn_gpio, then > request the attn_gpio before attempting to export it. > > Also introduces a GPIO_LABEL constant for identifying the attention GPIO. > I was looking at the patch some more and I have some concerns with it. > Signed-off-by: Christopher Heiny <cheiny@synaptics.com> > Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> > Cc: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com> > > --- > > drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++----------- > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c > index a30c7d3..33fb8f8 100644 > --- a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c > +++ b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c > @@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ static int enable_sensor(struct rmi_device *rmi_dev) > > data->enabled = true; > > - if (!pdata->level_triggered && > + if (pdata->attn_gpio && !pdata->level_triggered && O is perfectly fine GPIO number, you want to use gpio_is_valid() hete. I also wonder why do you need such elaborate check. Can we simply "flush" device before enabling interrupts? > gpio_get_value(pdata->attn_gpio) == pdata->attn_polarity) > retval = process_interrupt_requests(rmi_dev); > > @@ -807,6 +807,8 @@ static int rmi_driver_remove(struct device *dev) > return 0; > } > > +static const char GPIO_LABEL[] = "attn"; > + > static int rmi_driver_probe(struct device *dev) > { > struct rmi_driver *rmi_driver; > @@ -959,20 +961,24 @@ static int rmi_driver_probe(struct device *dev) > } > > if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RMI4_DEV) && pdata->attn_gpio) { > - retval = gpio_export(pdata->attn_gpio, false); > + retval = gpio_request(pdata->attn_gpio, GPIO_LABEL); Here it is too late to request GPIO. You have been converting it to IRQ, enabling that IRQ and calling gpio_get_value() so GPIO should have already been requested by now. So you need to move this code up. You may also consider using gpio_request_one() and use GPIOF_EXPORT flag if you want to export it. It would also be nice to set the direction (GPIOF_DIR_IN). I also do not see matching call to gpio_free() in remove(). > if (retval) { > - dev_warn(dev, "WARNING: Failed to export ATTN gpio!\n"); > - retval = 0; > + dev_warn(dev, "WARNING: Failed to request ATTN gpio %d, code: %d.\n", > + pdata->attn_gpio, retval); > } else { > - retval = gpio_export_link(dev, > - "attn", pdata->attn_gpio); > + retval = gpio_export(pdata->attn_gpio, false); > if (retval) { > - dev_warn(dev, > - "WARNING: Failed to symlink ATTN gpio!\n"); > - retval = 0; > + dev_warn(dev, "WARNING: Failed to export ATTN gpio %d, code: %d.\n", > + pdata->attn_gpio, retval); > } else { > - dev_info(dev, "Exported ATTN GPIO %d.", > - pdata->attn_gpio); > + retval = gpio_export_link(dev, GPIO_LABEL, > + pdata->attn_gpio); > + if (retval) > + dev_warn(dev, > + "WARNING: Failed to symlink ATTN gpio!\n"); > + else > + dev_info(dev, "Exported ATTN GPIO %d.", > + pdata->attn_gpio); > } > } > } Thanks.
On 12/18/2013 06:39 AM, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > Hi Chris, > > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:16:01PM -0800, Christopher Heiny wrote: >> This patch fixes two bugs in handling of the RMI4 attention line GPIO. >> >> 1) in enable_sensor(), make sure the attn_gpio is defined before attempting to >> get its value. >> >> 2) in rmi_driver_probe(), declare the name of the attn_gpio, then >> request the attn_gpio before attempting to export it. >> >> Also introduces a GPIO_LABEL constant for identifying the attention GPIO. >> > > I was looking at the patch some more and I have some concerns with it. > >> Signed-off-by: Christopher Heiny <cheiny@synaptics.com> >> Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> >> Cc: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com> >> >> --- >> >> drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++----------- >> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c >> index a30c7d3..33fb8f8 100644 >> --- a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c >> +++ b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c >> @@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ static int enable_sensor(struct rmi_device *rmi_dev) >> >> data->enabled = true; >> >> - if (!pdata->level_triggered && >> + if (pdata->attn_gpio && !pdata->level_triggered && > > O is perfectly fine GPIO number, you want to use gpio_is_valid() hete. I > also wonder why do you need such elaborate check. Can we simply "flush" > device before enabling interrupts? Hmmm. gpio_is_valid() is a good suggestion. However, I think we can do away with the whole check on the ATTN gpio, and just call process_interrupt_requests(). That will both flush the state and handle any important pending events. In the typical use case for enable_sensor(), the RMI4 device will either be just coming up or else coming out of a diagnostic mode, and there will at least be a status event to handle. In the off-case where there is nothing pending (that is, ATTN not asserted), the overhead is pretty low - just a quick read of the interrupt status register. > >> gpio_get_value(pdata->attn_gpio) == pdata->attn_polarity) >> retval = process_interrupt_requests(rmi_dev); >> >> @@ -807,6 +807,8 @@ static int rmi_driver_remove(struct device *dev) >> return 0; >> } >> >> +static const char GPIO_LABEL[] = "attn"; >> + >> static int rmi_driver_probe(struct device *dev) >> { >> struct rmi_driver *rmi_driver; >> @@ -959,20 +961,24 @@ static int rmi_driver_probe(struct device *dev) >> } >> >> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RMI4_DEV) && pdata->attn_gpio) { >> - retval = gpio_export(pdata->attn_gpio, false); >> + retval = gpio_request(pdata->attn_gpio, GPIO_LABEL); > > Here it is too late to request GPIO. You have been converting it to IRQ, > enabling that IRQ and calling gpio_get_value() so GPIO should have > already been requested by now. > > So you need to move this code up. I'll give that a try. > You may also consider using > gpio_request_one() and use GPIOF_EXPORT flag if you want to export it. > It would also be nice to set the direction (GPIOF_DIR_IN). Both of these are good ideas. > I also do not see matching call to gpio_free() in remove(). Neither do I :-(. We'll update. > >> if (retval) { >> - dev_warn(dev, "WARNING: Failed to export ATTN gpio!\n"); >> - retval = 0; >> + dev_warn(dev, "WARNING: Failed to request ATTN gpio %d, code: %d.\n", >> + pdata->attn_gpio, retval); >> } else { >> - retval = gpio_export_link(dev, >> - "attn", pdata->attn_gpio); >> + retval = gpio_export(pdata->attn_gpio, false); >> if (retval) { >> - dev_warn(dev, >> - "WARNING: Failed to symlink ATTN gpio!\n"); >> - retval = 0; >> + dev_warn(dev, "WARNING: Failed to export ATTN gpio %d, code: %d.\n", >> + pdata->attn_gpio, retval); >> } else { >> - dev_info(dev, "Exported ATTN GPIO %d.", >> - pdata->attn_gpio); >> + retval = gpio_export_link(dev, GPIO_LABEL, >> + pdata->attn_gpio); >> + if (retval) >> + dev_warn(dev, >> + "WARNING: Failed to symlink ATTN gpio!\n"); >> + else >> + dev_info(dev, "Exported ATTN GPIO %d.", >> + pdata->attn_gpio); >> } >> } >> } > > Thanks. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c index a30c7d3..33fb8f8 100644 --- a/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c +++ b/drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c @@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ static int enable_sensor(struct rmi_device *rmi_dev) data->enabled = true; - if (!pdata->level_triggered && + if (pdata->attn_gpio && !pdata->level_triggered && gpio_get_value(pdata->attn_gpio) == pdata->attn_polarity) retval = process_interrupt_requests(rmi_dev); @@ -807,6 +807,8 @@ static int rmi_driver_remove(struct device *dev) return 0; } +static const char GPIO_LABEL[] = "attn"; + static int rmi_driver_probe(struct device *dev) { struct rmi_driver *rmi_driver; @@ -959,20 +961,24 @@ static int rmi_driver_probe(struct device *dev) } if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RMI4_DEV) && pdata->attn_gpio) { - retval = gpio_export(pdata->attn_gpio, false); + retval = gpio_request(pdata->attn_gpio, GPIO_LABEL); if (retval) { - dev_warn(dev, "WARNING: Failed to export ATTN gpio!\n"); - retval = 0; + dev_warn(dev, "WARNING: Failed to request ATTN gpio %d, code: %d.\n", + pdata->attn_gpio, retval); } else { - retval = gpio_export_link(dev, - "attn", pdata->attn_gpio); + retval = gpio_export(pdata->attn_gpio, false); if (retval) { - dev_warn(dev, - "WARNING: Failed to symlink ATTN gpio!\n"); - retval = 0; + dev_warn(dev, "WARNING: Failed to export ATTN gpio %d, code: %d.\n", + pdata->attn_gpio, retval); } else { - dev_info(dev, "Exported ATTN GPIO %d.", - pdata->attn_gpio); + retval = gpio_export_link(dev, GPIO_LABEL, + pdata->attn_gpio); + if (retval) + dev_warn(dev, + "WARNING: Failed to symlink ATTN gpio!\n"); + else + dev_info(dev, "Exported ATTN GPIO %d.", + pdata->attn_gpio); } } }
This patch fixes two bugs in handling of the RMI4 attention line GPIO. 1) in enable_sensor(), make sure the attn_gpio is defined before attempting to get its value. 2) in rmi_driver_probe(), declare the name of the attn_gpio, then request the attn_gpio before attempting to export it. Also introduces a GPIO_LABEL constant for identifying the attention GPIO. Signed-off-by: Christopher Heiny <cheiny@synaptics.com> Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> Cc: Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com> --- drivers/input/rmi4/rmi_driver.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html