From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/4] irqchip: GIC: Convert to EOImode == 1
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:18:51 +0100
Message-ID: <55DCA37B.8030208@arm.com>
References: <1440503605-10185-1-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <1440503605-10185-4-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1508251745070.15006@nanos>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1508251745070.15006@nanos>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>, Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@linux.intel.com>, Eric Auger <eric.auger@linaro.org>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu

Hi Thomas,

On 25/08/15 16:46, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> +static struct static_key supports_deactivate = STATIC_KEY_INIT_TRUE;
>> +
>>  #ifndef MAX_GIC_NR
>>  #define MAX_GIC_NR	1
>>  #endif
>> @@ -137,6 +140,14 @@ static inline unsigned int gic_irq(struct irq_data *d)
>>  	return d->hwirq;
>>  }
>>  
>> +static inline bool primary_gic_irq(struct irq_data *d)
>> +{
>> +	if (MAX_GIC_NR > 1)
>> +		return irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d) == &gic_data[0];
>> +
>> +	return true;
>> +}
>> +
>>  /*
>>   * Routines to acknowledge, disable and enable interrupts
>>   */
>> @@ -164,7 +175,14 @@ static void gic_unmask_irq(struct irq_data *d)
>>  
>>  static void gic_eoi_irq(struct irq_data *d)
>>  {
>> -	writel_relaxed(gic_irq(d), gic_cpu_base(d) + GIC_CPU_EOI);
>> +	u32 deact_offset = GIC_CPU_EOI;
>> +
>> +	if (static_key_true(&supports_deactivate)) {
>> +		if (primary_gic_irq(d))
>> +			deact_offset = GIC_CPU_DEACTIVATE;
> 
> I really wonder for the whole series whether you really want all that
> static key dance and extra conditionals in the callbacks instead of
> just using seperate irq chips for the different interrupts.

Hmmm. We definitely could have different irqchips between primary and
secondary controllers indeed. We'd still need a static key for the
gic_handle_irq path though, but that's not too bad.

Let me hack something, and I'll come back to you ;-).

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:18:51 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v3 3/4] irqchip: GIC: Convert to EOImode == 1
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1508251745070.15006@nanos>
References: <1440503605-10185-1-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
 <1440503605-10185-4-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1508251745070.15006@nanos>
Message-ID: <55DCA37B.8030208@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Thomas,

On 25/08/15 16:46, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Aug 2015, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> +static struct static_key supports_deactivate = STATIC_KEY_INIT_TRUE;
>> +
>>  #ifndef MAX_GIC_NR
>>  #define MAX_GIC_NR	1
>>  #endif
>> @@ -137,6 +140,14 @@ static inline unsigned int gic_irq(struct irq_data *d)
>>  	return d->hwirq;
>>  }
>>  
>> +static inline bool primary_gic_irq(struct irq_data *d)
>> +{
>> +	if (MAX_GIC_NR > 1)
>> +		return irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d) == &gic_data[0];
>> +
>> +	return true;
>> +}
>> +
>>  /*
>>   * Routines to acknowledge, disable and enable interrupts
>>   */
>> @@ -164,7 +175,14 @@ static void gic_unmask_irq(struct irq_data *d)
>>  
>>  static void gic_eoi_irq(struct irq_data *d)
>>  {
>> -	writel_relaxed(gic_irq(d), gic_cpu_base(d) + GIC_CPU_EOI);
>> +	u32 deact_offset = GIC_CPU_EOI;
>> +
>> +	if (static_key_true(&supports_deactivate)) {
>> +		if (primary_gic_irq(d))
>> +			deact_offset = GIC_CPU_DEACTIVATE;
> 
> I really wonder for the whole series whether you really want all that
> static key dance and extra conditionals in the callbacks instead of
> just using seperate irq chips for the different interrupts.

Hmmm. We definitely could have different irqchips between primary and
secondary controllers indeed. We'd still need a static key for the
gic_handle_irq path though, but that's not too bad.

Let me hack something, and I'll come back to you ;-).

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...