[PATCH 01/18] arm64: initial support for GICv3

[will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)]

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:53:34PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 25/02/14 18:06, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Not sure if you care, but readq is a show-stopper if you want to build this
> > with arch/arm/.
> 
> I realized that recently. Any reason why we don't have writeq/readq on
> LPAE-capable stuff (other than the obvious runtime detection madness)?

I'm not sure that you'd be guaranteed single-copy atomicity for such an
access, which is probably assumed by readq/writeq.

> >> +                       if ((typer >> 32) == aff) {
> >> +                               gic_data_rdist_rd_base() = ptr;
> >> +                               pr_info("CPU%d: found redistributor %llx @%p\n",
> >> +                                       smp_processor_id(),
> >> +                                       (unsigned long long) mpidr, ptr);
> >> +                               return 0;
> >> +                       }
> >> +
> >> +                       if (gic_data.redist_stride) {
> >> +                               ptr += gic_data.redist_stride;
> >> +                       } else {
> >> +                               ptr += SZ_64K * 2; /* Skip RD_base + SGI_base */
> >> +                               if (typer & GICR_TYPER_VLPIS)
> >> +                                       ptr += SZ_64K * 2; /* Skip VLPI_base + reserved page */
> >> +                       }
> >
> > VLPIS is RES0 in GICv3.
> 
> Indeed. But we still want this driver to run on GICv4 HW, even if we
> don't use VLPIs just yet.

Ok, just mention that in the commit then.

> >> +static int gic_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d, const struct cpumask *mask_val,
> >> +                           bool force)
> >> +{
> >> +       unsigned int cpu = cpumask_any_and(mask_val, cpu_online_mask);
> >> +       void __iomem *reg;
> >> +       u64 val;
> >> +
> >> +       if (gic_irq(d) < 32)
> >> +               return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >> +       reg = gic_dist_base(d) + GICD_IROUTER + (gic_irq(d) * 8);
> >> +       val = gic_mpidr_to_affinity(cpu_logical_map(cpu));
> >> +
> >> +       writeq_relaxed(val, reg);
> >
> > How do you ensure that the interrupt has actually moved?
> 
> There is no way to ensure it actually did (other than reading back from
> the same register, if that's what you're aiming for?).

I guess it depends how angry Linux will get if the interrupt fires on the
wrong CPU. If the interrupt is pending when the moving takes place, will it
be asserted on the new target?

Will