[v3,2/2] pinctrl: stm32: Add level interrupt support to gpio irq chip

Commit Message

Alexandre TORGUE Feb. 19, 2020, 2:32 p.m. UTC

GPIO hardware block is directly linked to EXTI block but EXTI handles
external interrupts only on edge. To be able to handle GPIO interrupt on
level a "hack" is done in gpio irq chip: parent interrupt (exti irq chip)
is retriggered following interrupt type and gpio line value.

Signed-off-by: Alexandre Torgue <[e-mail]>
Tested-by: Marek Vasut <[e-mail]>

Comments

Linus Walleij Feb. 20, 2020, 9:04 a.m. UTC | #1

On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:32 PM Alexandre Torgue
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> GPIO hardware block is directly linked to EXTI block but EXTI handles
> external interrupts only on edge. To be able to handle GPIO interrupt on
> level a "hack" is done in gpio irq chip: parent interrupt (exti irq chip)
> is retriggered following interrupt type and gpio line value.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Torgue <[e-mail]>
> Tested-by: Marek Vasut <[e-mail]>

Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <[e-mail]>

If Marc want to merge it with patch 1/2 go ahead!

Alternatively I can merge both patches.

Thanks to you & Marek for hashing this out, excellent work!

Yours,
Linus Walleij

Marc Zyngier Feb. 20, 2020, 9:17 a.m. UTC | #2

On 2020-02-20 09:04, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:32 PM Alexandre Torgue
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> GPIO hardware block is directly linked to EXTI block but EXTI handles
>> external interrupts only on edge. To be able to handle GPIO interrupt 
>> on
>> level a "hack" is done in gpio irq chip: parent interrupt (exti irq 
>> chip)
>> is retriggered following interrupt type and gpio line value.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Torgue <[e-mail]>
>> Tested-by: Marek Vasut <[e-mail]>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <[e-mail]>
> 
> If Marc want to merge it with patch 1/2 go ahead!

I'll queue the whole thing for 5.7.

Thanks,

         M.

Marek Vasut March 23, 2020, 7:04 p.m. UTC | #3

On 2/20/20 10:17 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2020-02-20 09:04, Linus Walleij wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:32 PM Alexandre Torgue
>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> GPIO hardware block is directly linked to EXTI block but EXTI handles
>>> external interrupts only on edge. To be able to handle GPIO interrupt on
>>> level a "hack" is done in gpio irq chip: parent interrupt (exti irq
>>> chip)
>>> is retriggered following interrupt type and gpio line value.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Torgue <[e-mail]>
>>> Tested-by: Marek Vasut <[e-mail]>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <[e-mail]>
>>
>> If Marc want to merge it with patch 1/2 go ahead!
> 
> I'll queue the whole thing for 5.7.

I have a feeling this doesn't work with threaded interrupts.

If the interrupt handler runs in a thread context, the EOI will happen
almost right away (while the IRQ handler runs) and so will the code
handling the IRQ retriggering. But since the IRQ handler still runs and
didn't return yet, the retriggering doesn't cause the IRQ handler to be
called again once it finishes, even if the IRQ line is still asserted.
And that could result in some of the retriggers now happening I think.
Or am I doing something wrong ?

Marek Vasut March 23, 2020, 7:19 p.m. UTC | #4

On 3/23/20 8:04 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 2/20/20 10:17 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 2020-02-20 09:04, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:32 PM Alexandre Torgue
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> GPIO hardware block is directly linked to EXTI block but EXTI handles
>>>> external interrupts only on edge. To be able to handle GPIO interrupt on
>>>> level a "hack" is done in gpio irq chip: parent interrupt (exti irq
>>>> chip)
>>>> is retriggered following interrupt type and gpio line value.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Torgue <[e-mail]>
>>>> Tested-by: Marek Vasut <[e-mail]>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <[e-mail]>
>>>
>>> If Marc want to merge it with patch 1/2 go ahead!
>>
>> I'll queue the whole thing for 5.7.
> 
> I have a feeling this doesn't work with threaded interrupts.
> 
> If the interrupt handler runs in a thread context, the EOI will happen
> almost right away (while the IRQ handler runs) and so will the code
> handling the IRQ retriggering. But since the IRQ handler still runs and
> didn't return yet, the retriggering doesn't cause the IRQ handler to be
> called again once it finishes, even if the IRQ line is still asserted.
> And that could result in some of the retriggers now happening I think.
> Or am I doing something wrong ?

The patch below makes my usecase work, but I don't know whether it's
correct. Basically once the threaded IRQ handler finishes and unmasks
the IRQ, check whether the line is asserted and retrigger if so.

diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
b/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
index 9ac9ecfc2f34..060dbcb7ae72 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
@@ -371,12 +371,26 @@ static void
stm32_gpio_irq_release_resources(struct irq_data *irq_data)
        gpiochip_unlock_as_irq(&bank->gpio_chip, irq_data->hwirq);
 }

+static void stm32_gpio_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *d)
+{
+       struct stm32_gpio_bank *bank = d->domain->host_data;
+       int level;
+
+       irq_chip_unmask_parent(d);
+
+       /* If level interrupt type then retrig */
+       level = stm32_gpio_get(&bank->gpio_chip, d->hwirq);
+       if ((level == 0 && bank->irq_type[d->hwirq] ==
IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW) ||
+           (level == 1 && bank->irq_type[d->hwirq] == IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH))
+               irq_chip_retrigger_hierarchy(d);
+}
+
 static struct irq_chip stm32_gpio_irq_chip = {
        .name           = "stm32gpio",
        .irq_eoi        = stm32_gpio_irq_eoi,
        .irq_ack        = irq_chip_ack_parent,
        .irq_mask       = irq_chip_mask_parent,
-       .irq_unmask     = irq_chip_unmask_parent,
+       .irq_unmask     = stm32_gpio_irq_unmask,
        .irq_set_type   = stm32_gpio_set_type,
        .irq_set_wake   = irq_chip_set_wake_parent,
        .irq_request_resources = stm32_gpio_irq_request_resources,

Marc Zyngier March 23, 2020, 7:25 p.m. UTC | #5

On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:04:23 +0100
Marek Vasut <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 2/20/20 10:17 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On 2020-02-20 09:04, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:32 PM Alexandre Torgue
> >> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> GPIO hardware block is directly linked to EXTI block but EXTI handles
> >>> external interrupts only on edge. To be able to handle GPIO interrupt on
> >>> level a "hack" is done in gpio irq chip: parent interrupt (exti irq
> >>> chip)
> >>> is retriggered following interrupt type and gpio line value.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Torgue <[e-mail]>
> >>> Tested-by: Marek Vasut <[e-mail]>
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <[e-mail]>
> >>
> >> If Marc want to merge it with patch 1/2 go ahead!
> > 
> > I'll queue the whole thing for 5.7.
> 
> I have a feeling this doesn't work with threaded interrupts.
> 
> If the interrupt handler runs in a thread context, the EOI will happen
> almost right away (while the IRQ handler runs) and so will the code
> handling the IRQ retriggering. But since the IRQ handler still runs and
> didn't return yet, the retriggering doesn't cause the IRQ handler to be
> called again once it finishes, even if the IRQ line is still asserted.
> And that could result in some of the retriggers now happening I think.
> Or am I doing something wrong ?

Wouldn't the hardirq handler mask the interrupt? This should certainly
be the case when IRQF_ONESHOT is set.

	M.

Marc Zyngier March 23, 2020, 7:31 p.m. UTC | #6

On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:19:39 +0100
Marek Vasut <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 3/23/20 8:04 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > On 2/20/20 10:17 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >> On 2020-02-20 09:04, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:32 PM Alexandre Torgue
> >>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> GPIO hardware block is directly linked to EXTI block but EXTI handles
> >>>> external interrupts only on edge. To be able to handle GPIO interrupt on
> >>>> level a "hack" is done in gpio irq chip: parent interrupt (exti irq
> >>>> chip)
> >>>> is retriggered following interrupt type and gpio line value.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Torgue <[e-mail]>
> >>>> Tested-by: Marek Vasut <[e-mail]>
> >>>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <[e-mail]>
> >>>
> >>> If Marc want to merge it with patch 1/2 go ahead!
> >>
> >> I'll queue the whole thing for 5.7.
> > 
> > I have a feeling this doesn't work with threaded interrupts.
> > 
> > If the interrupt handler runs in a thread context, the EOI will happen
> > almost right away (while the IRQ handler runs) and so will the code
> > handling the IRQ retriggering. But since the IRQ handler still runs and
> > didn't return yet, the retriggering doesn't cause the IRQ handler to be
> > called again once it finishes, even if the IRQ line is still asserted.
> > And that could result in some of the retriggers now happening I think.
> > Or am I doing something wrong ?
> 
> The patch below makes my usecase work, but I don't know whether it's
> correct. Basically once the threaded IRQ handler finishes and unmasks
> the IRQ, check whether the line is asserted and retrigger if so.
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
> b/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
> index 9ac9ecfc2f34..060dbcb7ae72 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
> @@ -371,12 +371,26 @@ static void
> stm32_gpio_irq_release_resources(struct irq_data *irq_data)
>         gpiochip_unlock_as_irq(&bank->gpio_chip, irq_data->hwirq);
>  }
> 
> +static void stm32_gpio_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *d)
> +{
> +       struct stm32_gpio_bank *bank = d->domain->host_data;
> +       int level;
> +
> +       irq_chip_unmask_parent(d);
> +
> +       /* If level interrupt type then retrig */
> +       level = stm32_gpio_get(&bank->gpio_chip, d->hwirq);
> +       if ((level == 0 && bank->irq_type[d->hwirq] ==
> IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW) ||
> +           (level == 1 && bank->irq_type[d->hwirq] == IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH))
> +               irq_chip_retrigger_hierarchy(d);
> +}
> +
>  static struct irq_chip stm32_gpio_irq_chip = {
>         .name           = "stm32gpio",
>         .irq_eoi        = stm32_gpio_irq_eoi,
>         .irq_ack        = irq_chip_ack_parent,
>         .irq_mask       = irq_chip_mask_parent,
> -       .irq_unmask     = irq_chip_unmask_parent,
> +       .irq_unmask     = stm32_gpio_irq_unmask,
>         .irq_set_type   = stm32_gpio_set_type,
>         .irq_set_wake   = irq_chip_set_wake_parent,
>         .irq_request_resources = stm32_gpio_irq_request_resources,
> 

OK, I see your problem now.

The usual flow is along the line of Ack+Eoi, and that's what the
current code guarantees.

Threaded interrupts do Ack+Mask+Eoi, followed by an Unmask once the
thread finishes. This unmask needs to do the retrigger as well, as you
found out.

Can you please refactor the above so that we have the common code
between unmask and eoi in a separate function, send a proper patch, and
I'll apply it on top of the current irq/irqchip-5.7 branch.

Thanks,

	M.

Marek Vasut March 23, 2020, 7:37 p.m. UTC | #7

On 3/23/20 8:31 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:19:39 +0100
> Marek Vasut <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/23/20 8:04 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> On 2/20/20 10:17 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> On 2020-02-20 09:04, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:32 PM Alexandre Torgue
>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> GPIO hardware block is directly linked to EXTI block but EXTI handles
>>>>>> external interrupts only on edge. To be able to handle GPIO interrupt on
>>>>>> level a "hack" is done in gpio irq chip: parent interrupt (exti irq
>>>>>> chip)
>>>>>> is retriggered following interrupt type and gpio line value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Torgue <[e-mail]>
>>>>>> Tested-by: Marek Vasut <[e-mail]>
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <[e-mail]>
>>>>>
>>>>> If Marc want to merge it with patch 1/2 go ahead!
>>>>
>>>> I'll queue the whole thing for 5.7.
>>>
>>> I have a feeling this doesn't work with threaded interrupts.
>>>
>>> If the interrupt handler runs in a thread context, the EOI will happen
>>> almost right away (while the IRQ handler runs) and so will the code
>>> handling the IRQ retriggering. But since the IRQ handler still runs and
>>> didn't return yet, the retriggering doesn't cause the IRQ handler to be
>>> called again once it finishes, even if the IRQ line is still asserted.
>>> And that could result in some of the retriggers now happening I think.
>>> Or am I doing something wrong ?
>>
>> The patch below makes my usecase work, but I don't know whether it's
>> correct. Basically once the threaded IRQ handler finishes and unmasks
>> the IRQ, check whether the line is asserted and retrigger if so.
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
>> b/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
>> index 9ac9ecfc2f34..060dbcb7ae72 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
>> @@ -371,12 +371,26 @@ static void
>> stm32_gpio_irq_release_resources(struct irq_data *irq_data)
>>         gpiochip_unlock_as_irq(&bank->gpio_chip, irq_data->hwirq);
>>  }
>>
>> +static void stm32_gpio_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *d)
>> +{
>> +       struct stm32_gpio_bank *bank = d->domain->host_data;
>> +       int level;
>> +
>> +       irq_chip_unmask_parent(d);
>> +
>> +       /* If level interrupt type then retrig */
>> +       level = stm32_gpio_get(&bank->gpio_chip, d->hwirq);
>> +       if ((level == 0 && bank->irq_type[d->hwirq] ==
>> IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW) ||
>> +           (level == 1 && bank->irq_type[d->hwirq] == IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH))
>> +               irq_chip_retrigger_hierarchy(d);
>> +}
>> +
>>  static struct irq_chip stm32_gpio_irq_chip = {
>>         .name           = "stm32gpio",
>>         .irq_eoi        = stm32_gpio_irq_eoi,
>>         .irq_ack        = irq_chip_ack_parent,
>>         .irq_mask       = irq_chip_mask_parent,
>> -       .irq_unmask     = irq_chip_unmask_parent,
>> +       .irq_unmask     = stm32_gpio_irq_unmask,
>>         .irq_set_type   = stm32_gpio_set_type,
>>         .irq_set_wake   = irq_chip_set_wake_parent,
>>         .irq_request_resources = stm32_gpio_irq_request_resources,
>>
> 
> OK, I see your problem now.
> 
> The usual flow is along the line of Ack+Eoi, and that's what the
> current code guarantees.
> 
> Threaded interrupts do Ack+Mask+Eoi, followed by an Unmask once the
> thread finishes. This unmask needs to do the retrigger as well, as you
> found out.
> 
> Can you please refactor the above so that we have the common code
> between unmask and eoi in a separate function, send a proper patch, and
> I'll apply it on top of the current irq/irqchip-5.7 branch.

Sure, I can. Do we still need this retriggering in the irq_eoi too ?

Also, are there any other hidden details I might've missed ?

Marc Zyngier March 23, 2020, 7:49 p.m. UTC | #8

On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:37:54 +0100
Marek Vasut <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 3/23/20 8:31 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:19:39 +0100
> > Marek Vasut <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> >> On 3/23/20 8:04 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> >>> On 2/20/20 10:17 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>>> On 2020-02-20 09:04, Linus Walleij wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:32 PM Alexandre Torgue
> >>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> GPIO hardware block is directly linked to EXTI block but EXTI handles
> >>>>>> external interrupts only on edge. To be able to handle GPIO interrupt on
> >>>>>> level a "hack" is done in gpio irq chip: parent interrupt (exti irq
> >>>>>> chip)
> >>>>>> is retriggered following interrupt type and gpio line value.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Torgue <[e-mail]>
> >>>>>> Tested-by: Marek Vasut <[e-mail]>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <[e-mail]>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If Marc want to merge it with patch 1/2 go ahead!
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll queue the whole thing for 5.7.
> >>>
> >>> I have a feeling this doesn't work with threaded interrupts.
> >>>
> >>> If the interrupt handler runs in a thread context, the EOI will happen
> >>> almost right away (while the IRQ handler runs) and so will the code
> >>> handling the IRQ retriggering. But since the IRQ handler still runs and
> >>> didn't return yet, the retriggering doesn't cause the IRQ handler to be
> >>> called again once it finishes, even if the IRQ line is still asserted.
> >>> And that could result in some of the retriggers now happening I think.
> >>> Or am I doing something wrong ?
> >>
> >> The patch below makes my usecase work, but I don't know whether it's
> >> correct. Basically once the threaded IRQ handler finishes and unmasks
> >> the IRQ, check whether the line is asserted and retrigger if so.
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
> >> b/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
> >> index 9ac9ecfc2f34..060dbcb7ae72 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
> >> @@ -371,12 +371,26 @@ static void
> >> stm32_gpio_irq_release_resources(struct irq_data *irq_data)
> >>         gpiochip_unlock_as_irq(&bank->gpio_chip, irq_data->hwirq);
> >>  }
> >>
> >> +static void stm32_gpio_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *d)
> >> +{
> >> +       struct stm32_gpio_bank *bank = d->domain->host_data;
> >> +       int level;
> >> +
> >> +       irq_chip_unmask_parent(d);
> >> +
> >> +       /* If level interrupt type then retrig */
> >> +       level = stm32_gpio_get(&bank->gpio_chip, d->hwirq);
> >> +       if ((level == 0 && bank->irq_type[d->hwirq] ==
> >> IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW) ||
> >> +           (level == 1 && bank->irq_type[d->hwirq] == IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH))
> >> +               irq_chip_retrigger_hierarchy(d);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >>  static struct irq_chip stm32_gpio_irq_chip = {
> >>         .name           = "stm32gpio",
> >>         .irq_eoi        = stm32_gpio_irq_eoi,
> >>         .irq_ack        = irq_chip_ack_parent,
> >>         .irq_mask       = irq_chip_mask_parent,
> >> -       .irq_unmask     = irq_chip_unmask_parent,
> >> +       .irq_unmask     = stm32_gpio_irq_unmask,
> >>         .irq_set_type   = stm32_gpio_set_type,
> >>         .irq_set_wake   = irq_chip_set_wake_parent,
> >>         .irq_request_resources = stm32_gpio_irq_request_resources,
> >>
> > 
> > OK, I see your problem now.
> > 
> > The usual flow is along the line of Ack+Eoi, and that's what the
> > current code guarantees.
> > 
> > Threaded interrupts do Ack+Mask+Eoi, followed by an Unmask once the
> > thread finishes. This unmask needs to do the retrigger as well, as you
> > found out.
> > 
> > Can you please refactor the above so that we have the common code
> > between unmask and eoi in a separate function, send a proper patch, and
> > I'll apply it on top of the current irq/irqchip-5.7 branch.
> 
> Sure, I can. Do we still need this retriggering in the irq_eoi too ?

Absolutely, because that's what matters for the non-threaded case
(there is no mask/unmask on that path). It is also never wrong to
over-resample (it just slows things down).

> Also, are there any other hidden details I might've missed ?

Probably. But let's fix one bug at a time, shall we? ;-) And let's hope
that ST doesn't take this as a excuse not to clean up their act in
their next SoC!

Thanks,

	M.

Marek Vasut March 23, 2020, 11:52 p.m. UTC | #9

On 3/23/20 8:49 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:37:54 +0100
> Marek Vasut <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On 3/23/20 8:31 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On Mon, 23 Mar 2020 20:19:39 +0100
>>> Marek Vasut <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/23/20 8:04 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>> On 2/20/20 10:17 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>>>> On 2020-02-20 09:04, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 3:32 PM Alexandre Torgue
>>>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> GPIO hardware block is directly linked to EXTI block but EXTI handles
>>>>>>>> external interrupts only on edge. To be able to handle GPIO interrupt on
>>>>>>>> level a "hack" is done in gpio irq chip: parent interrupt (exti irq
>>>>>>>> chip)
>>>>>>>> is retriggered following interrupt type and gpio line value.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Torgue <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>> Tested-by: Marek Vasut <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If Marc want to merge it with patch 1/2 go ahead!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll queue the whole thing for 5.7.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a feeling this doesn't work with threaded interrupts.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the interrupt handler runs in a thread context, the EOI will happen
>>>>> almost right away (while the IRQ handler runs) and so will the code
>>>>> handling the IRQ retriggering. But since the IRQ handler still runs and
>>>>> didn't return yet, the retriggering doesn't cause the IRQ handler to be
>>>>> called again once it finishes, even if the IRQ line is still asserted.
>>>>> And that could result in some of the retriggers now happening I think.
>>>>> Or am I doing something wrong ?
>>>>
>>>> The patch below makes my usecase work, but I don't know whether it's
>>>> correct. Basically once the threaded IRQ handler finishes and unmasks
>>>> the IRQ, check whether the line is asserted and retrigger if so.
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
>>>> b/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
>>>> index 9ac9ecfc2f34..060dbcb7ae72 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
>>>> @@ -371,12 +371,26 @@ static void
>>>> stm32_gpio_irq_release_resources(struct irq_data *irq_data)
>>>>         gpiochip_unlock_as_irq(&bank->gpio_chip, irq_data->hwirq);
>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>> +static void stm32_gpio_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *d)
>>>> +{
>>>> +       struct stm32_gpio_bank *bank = d->domain->host_data;
>>>> +       int level;
>>>> +
>>>> +       irq_chip_unmask_parent(d);
>>>> +
>>>> +       /* If level interrupt type then retrig */
>>>> +       level = stm32_gpio_get(&bank->gpio_chip, d->hwirq);
>>>> +       if ((level == 0 && bank->irq_type[d->hwirq] ==
>>>> IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW) ||
>>>> +           (level == 1 && bank->irq_type[d->hwirq] == IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH))
>>>> +               irq_chip_retrigger_hierarchy(d);
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>>  static struct irq_chip stm32_gpio_irq_chip = {
>>>>         .name           = "stm32gpio",
>>>>         .irq_eoi        = stm32_gpio_irq_eoi,
>>>>         .irq_ack        = irq_chip_ack_parent,
>>>>         .irq_mask       = irq_chip_mask_parent,
>>>> -       .irq_unmask     = irq_chip_unmask_parent,
>>>> +       .irq_unmask     = stm32_gpio_irq_unmask,
>>>>         .irq_set_type   = stm32_gpio_set_type,
>>>>         .irq_set_wake   = irq_chip_set_wake_parent,
>>>>         .irq_request_resources = stm32_gpio_irq_request_resources,
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK, I see your problem now.
>>>
>>> The usual flow is along the line of Ack+Eoi, and that's what the
>>> current code guarantees.
>>>
>>> Threaded interrupts do Ack+Mask+Eoi, followed by an Unmask once the
>>> thread finishes. This unmask needs to do the retrigger as well, as you
>>> found out.
>>>
>>> Can you please refactor the above so that we have the common code
>>> between unmask and eoi in a separate function, send a proper patch, and
>>> I'll apply it on top of the current irq/irqchip-5.7 branch.
>>
>> Sure, I can. Do we still need this retriggering in the irq_eoi too ?
> 
> Absolutely, because that's what matters for the non-threaded case
> (there is no mask/unmask on that path). It is also never wrong to
> over-resample (it just slows things down).
> 
>> Also, are there any other hidden details I might've missed ?
> 
> Probably. But let's fix one bug at a time, shall we? ;-) And let's hope
> that ST doesn't take this as a excuse not to clean up their act in
> their next SoC!

Indeed.

Patch is out, thanks for the feedback :)

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c b/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
index 2d5e0435af0a..d330b30729a5 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/stm32/pinctrl-stm32.c
@@ -92,6 +92,7 @@  struct stm32_gpio_bank {
 	u32 bank_nr;
 	u32 bank_ioport_nr;
 	u32 pin_backup[STM32_GPIO_PINS_PER_BANK];
+	u8 irq_type[STM32_GPIO_PINS_PER_BANK];
 };
 
 struct stm32_pinctrl {
@@ -303,6 +304,46 @@  static const struct gpio_chip stm32_gpio_template = {
 	.get_direction		= stm32_gpio_get_direction,
 };
 
+void stm32_gpio_irq_eoi(struct irq_data *d)
+{
+	struct stm32_gpio_bank *bank = d->domain->host_data;
+	int level;
+
+	irq_chip_eoi_parent(d);
+
+	/* If level interrupt type then retrig */
+	level = stm32_gpio_get(&bank->gpio_chip, d->hwirq);
+	if ((level == 0 && bank->irq_type[d->hwirq] == IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW) ||
+	    (level == 1 && bank->irq_type[d->hwirq] == IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH))
+		irq_chip_retrigger_hierarchy(d);
+};
+
+static int stm32_gpio_set_type(struct irq_data *d, unsigned int type)
+{
+	struct stm32_gpio_bank *bank = d->domain->host_data;
+	u32 parent_type;
+
+	switch (type) {
+	case IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING:
+	case IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING:
+	case IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH:
+		parent_type = type;
+		break;
+	case IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH:
+		parent_type = IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING;
+		break;
+	case IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW:
+		parent_type = IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING;
+		break;
+	default:
+		return -EINVAL;
+	}
+
+	bank->irq_type[d->hwirq] = type;
+
+	return irq_chip_set_type_parent(d, parent_type);
+};
+
 static int stm32_gpio_irq_request_resources(struct irq_data *irq_data)
 {
 	struct stm32_gpio_bank *bank = irq_data->domain->host_data;
@@ -332,11 +373,11 @@  static void stm32_gpio_irq_release_resources(struct irq_data *irq_data)
 
 static struct irq_chip stm32_gpio_irq_chip = {
 	.name		= "stm32gpio",
-	.irq_eoi	= irq_chip_eoi_parent,
+	.irq_eoi	= stm32_gpio_irq_eoi,
 	.irq_ack	= irq_chip_ack_parent,
 	.irq_mask	= irq_chip_mask_parent,
 	.irq_unmask	= irq_chip_unmask_parent,
-	.irq_set_type	= irq_chip_set_type_parent,
+	.irq_set_type	= stm32_gpio_set_type,
 	.irq_set_wake	= irq_chip_set_wake_parent,
 	.irq_request_resources = stm32_gpio_irq_request_resources,
 	.irq_release_resources = stm32_gpio_irq_release_resources,