From: soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com (Sören Brinkmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: SOC-specific action for irq_set_wake
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 09:03:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160720160313.GU3847@xsjsorenbubuntu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <578F7E4C.9040407@arm.com>
On Wed, 2016-07-20 at 14:36:12 +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Hi S?ren,
>
> On 20/07/16 14:16, S?ren Brinkmann wrote:
> > Hi Marc,
>
> >>>>> Does anybody have similar problems and probably already solved it?
> >>>>> Any other suggestions for approaching the problem? Any preferred
> >>>>> solution?
> >>>>
> >>>> I think we have the same problem. Can you provide more detail on the hardware
> >>>> implementation of your wake irq controller? I presume you have some set of
> >>>> registers, an irq maybe, and some other stuff? And how does it fit into the
> >>>> overall architecture from a hardware perspective?
> >>>
> >>> We have essentially a whole second interrupt controller. All IRQs are
> >>> connected to the A53 GIC and this second interrupt controller that is
> >>> controlled by the companion core. The companion core is supposed to be
> >>> informed about what source the A53 needs to wake up on and will program
> >>> this second IRQ controller, etc.
> >>
> >> So your "special case" is exactly like everyone else's. Implement it as
> >> a hierarchical chip on top of the GIC, just like Tegra, OMAP, iMX6,
> >> Exynos and a few others. Unless you implement PSCI.
> >
> > I didn't really think that our case is unique. I was just looking for
> > some pointers into the right direction as the extension mechanism that I
> > remembered disappeared and I haven't been following the development
> > closely enough to just know what alternatives are available.
> > So, you say the approach of letting the secure monitor infer the wake
> > IRQ by reading the GIC config is preferred over handling it as
> > hierarchical chip within Linux?
>
> The in-kernel approach is a consequence of the firmware-less 32bit
> configuration. Hopefully, we won't see anything like that anymore.
> Fingers crossed.
>
> So the firmware approach is clearly the preferred one on arm64, as it
> simplifies absolutely everything (and your power management has to know
> about all of this anyway).
Thanks for your input. We'll do it this way then. Thanks, everybody.
S?ren
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-20 16:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-19 18:18 SOC-specific action for irq_set_wake Sören Brinkmann
2016-07-19 22:47 ` Andy Gross
2016-07-19 23:34 ` Sören Brinkmann
2016-07-20 8:17 ` Marc Zyngier
2016-07-20 13:16 ` Sören Brinkmann
2016-07-20 13:28 ` Andy Gross
2016-07-20 13:36 ` Marc Zyngier
2016-07-20 16:03 ` Sören Brinkmann [this message]
2016-07-20 6:38 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-07-20 6:28 ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-07-20 13:23 ` Sören Brinkmann
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=20160720160313.GU3847@xsjsorenbubuntu \
--to=soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).