From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Tue, 06 Sep 2011 20:38:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mail3.caviumnetworks.com ([12.108.191.235]:10577 "EHLO
        mail3.caviumnetworks.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
        by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S1491846Ab1IFSio (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org>); Tue, 6 Sep 2011 20:38:44 +0200
Received: from caexch01.caveonetworks.com (Not Verified[192.168.16.9]) by mail3.caviumnetworks.com with MailMarshal (v6,7,2,8378)
        id <B4e6668f30000>; Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:39:47 -0700
Received: from caexch01.caveonetworks.com ([192.168.16.9]) by caexch01.caveonetworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);
         Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:38:35 -0700
Received: from dd1.caveonetworks.com ([64.2.3.195]) by caexch01.caveonetworks.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675);
         Tue, 6 Sep 2011 11:38:34 -0700
Message-ID: <4E6668A4.8010300@cavium.com>
Date:   Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:38:28 -0700
From:   David Daney <david.daney@cavium.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.15) Gecko/20101027 Fedora/3.0.10-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:     SAURABH MALPANI <saurabh140585@gmail.com>
CC:     linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Subject: Re: MIPS: Octeon: mailbox_interrupt is not registered as per cpu
References: <CAFsuBjW4XZy6x4gDL+0cw92jUbuEodF4vzCcCijQDize97wkNQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFsuBjW4XZy6x4gDL+0cw92jUbuEodF4vzCcCijQDize97wkNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Sep 2011 18:38:34.0976 (UTC) FILETIME=[2F4B5E00:01CC6CC4]
X-archive-position: 31047
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
X-original-sender: david.daney@cavium.com
Precedence: bulk
X-list: linux-mips
Return-Path: <linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org>
X-Keywords:                  
X-UID: 3389

On 09/05/2011 03:23 AM, SAURABH MALPANI wrote:
> Hi,
>
> <Re sending this because last time I am afraid I didn't hit the
> correct mail filters.>
>
> Query:
>
> mailbox_interrupt is not registered with IRQF_PERCPU but it is
> supposed to be percpu interrupt. Is that on purpose or a miss?

On Octeon the per-cpuness of a particular irq is a property of the irq 
itself rather than being controlled by IRQF_PERCPU.  So other than being 
perhaps stylistically in poor taste, no harm is done by omitting 
IRQF_PERCPU here.

> I am
> porting some code from x86 to octeon which requires special handling
> for per cpu interrupts.
>
>   void octeon_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus)
> {
>           cvmx_write_csr(CVMX_CIU_MBOX_CLRX(cvmx_get_core_num()), 0xffffffff);
>           if (request_irq(OCTEON_IRQ_MBOX0, mailbox_interrupt, IRQF_DISABLED,
>                           "mailbox0", mailbox_interrupt)) {
>                   panic("Cannot request_irq(OCTEON_IRQ_MBOX0)\n");
>           }
>           if (request_irq(OCTEON_IRQ_MBOX1, mailbox_interrupt, IRQF_DISABLED,
>                           "mailbox1", mailbox_interrupt)) {
>                   panic("Cannot request_irq(OCTEON_IRQ_MBOX1)\n");
>           }
> }
>
> --
> Saurabh
>
>