From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] irqchip: GICv3: Skip LPI deactivation
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 14:34:58 +0100
Message-ID: <55CB4B82.9060601@arm.com>
References: <1436447951-22357-1-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <1436447951-22357-4-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <55C9C39A.3060208@linaro.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>,
	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@linux.intel.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
To: Eric Auger <eric.auger@linaro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:58333 "EHLO foss.arm.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752561AbbHLNfC (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:35:02 -0400
In-Reply-To: <55C9C39A.3060208@linaro.org>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 11/08/15 10:42, Eric Auger wrote:
> On 07/09/2015 03:19 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Contrary to other GICv3 interrupts, LPIs do not have an active state
>> by virtue of being edge-triggered only (they only have a pending state).
>>
>> Given this, there is no point trying to deactivate them, and we can
>> skip the ICC_DIR_EL1 entierely.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c | 8 ++++++--
>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
>> index 49768fc..e02592b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
>> @@ -295,10 +295,14 @@ static int gic_irq_get_irqchip_state(struct irq_data *d,
>>  
>>  static void gic_eoi_irq(struct irq_data *d)
>>  {
>> -	if (static_key_true(&supports_deactivate))
>> +	if (static_key_true(&supports_deactivate)) {
>> +		/* No need to deactivate an LPI */
>> +		if (gic_irq(d) >= 8192)
> In case of EOIMode == 0, we do not call EOI. I can't understand whether
> it is an issue.

What do you mean? We definitely perform an EOI in both EOImodes...

> In 4.8.3 Properties of LPI, in 2d note it is written:
> 
> "SW must issue a write to EOI to clear the active priorities register,
> hence the CPU interface still requires an active state for LPIs, even
> through this is not necessary within the redistributor"
> 
> Eric
>> +			return;
>>  		gic_write_dir(gic_irq(d));
>> -	else
>> +	} else {
>>  		gic_write_eoir(gic_irq(d));

... right here.

Of am I missing something completely obvious?

Thanks,

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