From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: Bogdan Purcareata <bogdan.purcareata@freescale.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc/mpic: Add DT option to skip readback after EOI
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:57:53 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1422395873.10544.61.camel@freescale.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1422371952-1126-1-git-send-email-bogdan.purcareata@freescale.com>
On Tue, 2015-01-27 at 15:19 +0000, Bogdan Purcareata wrote:
> The readback acts as a synchronization mechanism in handling external
> interrupts, making sure the core waits until EOI write completion. This is
> required in certain scenarios, such as when the MPIC communicates with a PCI
> device in posted write mode. If the device uses legacy interrupts, and the CPU
> returns from the interrupt as soon as it fires the EOI write, there is a chance
> to receive spurious interrupts because the line isn't deasserted yet.
The line was deasserted when IACK was read, before the EOI. The issue
is (in theory at least) the timing of the write to the device versus the
write to EOI, not the timing of MPIC receiving the EOI versus when the
CPU executes rfi.
> + - mpic-eoi-no-readback
> + Usage: optional
> + Value type: <empty>
> + Definition: The presence of this property specifies that the
> + MPIC will not issue a readback
s/will not/does not need to/
At this point, given the previous discussion, does anyone object to
removing the readback entirely? Do we have any evidence that reading
WHOAMI is effective at addressing whatever problem reading EOI made go
away on the relevant platform?
> when delivering the EOI for an
> + external interrupt. The readback operation is done by reading
> + the CPU WHOAMI register after writing to the CPU EOI register.
> + Originally, this was required due to the fact that the MPIC
> + operates at lower frequencies,
Why?
-Scott
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: Bogdan Purcareata <bogdan.purcareata@freescale.com>
Cc: <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc/mpic: Add DT option to skip readback after EOI
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 15:57:53 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1422395873.10544.61.camel@freescale.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1422371952-1126-1-git-send-email-bogdan.purcareata@freescale.com>
On Tue, 2015-01-27 at 15:19 +0000, Bogdan Purcareata wrote:
> The readback acts as a synchronization mechanism in handling external
> interrupts, making sure the core waits until EOI write completion. This is
> required in certain scenarios, such as when the MPIC communicates with a PCI
> device in posted write mode. If the device uses legacy interrupts, and the CPU
> returns from the interrupt as soon as it fires the EOI write, there is a chance
> to receive spurious interrupts because the line isn't deasserted yet.
The line was deasserted when IACK was read, before the EOI. The issue
is (in theory at least) the timing of the write to the device versus the
write to EOI, not the timing of MPIC receiving the EOI versus when the
CPU executes rfi.
> + - mpic-eoi-no-readback
> + Usage: optional
> + Value type: <empty>
> + Definition: The presence of this property specifies that the
> + MPIC will not issue a readback
s/will not/does not need to/
At this point, given the previous discussion, does anyone object to
removing the readback entirely? Do we have any evidence that reading
WHOAMI is effective at addressing whatever problem reading EOI made go
away on the relevant platform?
> when delivering the EOI for an
> + external interrupt. The readback operation is done by reading
> + the CPU WHOAMI register after writing to the CPU EOI register.
> + Originally, this was required due to the fact that the MPIC
> + operates at lower frequencies,
Why?
-Scott
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-27 21:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-27 15:19 [PATCH v2] powerpc/mpic: Add DT option to skip readback after EOI Bogdan Purcareata
2015-01-27 15:19 ` Bogdan Purcareata
2015-01-27 21:57 ` Scott Wood [this message]
2015-01-27 21:57 ` Scott Wood
2015-01-28 20:15 ` Segher Boessenkool
2015-01-28 20:15 ` Segher Boessenkool
2015-01-28 23:03 ` Scott Wood
2015-01-28 23:03 ` Scott Wood
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1422395873.10544.61.camel@freescale.com \
--to=scottwood@freescale.com \
--cc=bogdan.purcareata@freescale.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.