* [RFC PATCH 1/3] [ARM] allow NR_IRQS to be larger than 256
@ 2010-02-04 19:09 Eric Miao
2010-02-04 19:14 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-02-04 19:29 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Eric Miao @ 2010-02-04 19:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
commit fc14e7ca387688ca63eafa16d4aa3012898d096d
Author: Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@gmail.com>
Date: Mon Dec 28 11:05:55 2009 +0800
[ARM] allow NR_IRQS to be larger than 256
Signed-off-by: Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@gmail.com>
diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/hardirq.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/hardirq.h
index 182310b..6d7485a 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/hardirq.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/hardirq.h
@@ -12,7 +12,9 @@ typedef struct {
#include <linux/irq_cpustat.h> /* Standard mappings for irq_cpustat_t above */
-#if NR_IRQS > 256
+#if NR_IRQS > 512
+#define HARDIRQ_BITS 10
+#elif NR_IRQS > 256
#define HARDIRQ_BITS 9
#else
#define HARDIRQ_BITS 8
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [RFC PATCH 1/3] [ARM] allow NR_IRQS to be larger than 256
2010-02-04 19:09 [RFC PATCH 1/3] [ARM] allow NR_IRQS to be larger than 256 Eric Miao
@ 2010-02-04 19:14 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-02-04 19:18 ` Eric Miao
2010-02-04 19:29 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Russell King - ARM Linux @ 2010-02-04 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 11:09:22AM -0800, Eric Miao wrote:
> commit fc14e7ca387688ca63eafa16d4aa3012898d096d
> Author: Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon Dec 28 11:05:55 2009 +0800
>
> [ARM] allow NR_IRQS to be larger than 256
Don't you mean 512 ?
> -#if NR_IRQS > 256
> +#if NR_IRQS > 512
> +#define HARDIRQ_BITS 10
> +#elif NR_IRQS > 256
> #define HARDIRQ_BITS 9
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [RFC PATCH 1/3] [ARM] allow NR_IRQS to be larger than 256
2010-02-04 19:14 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
@ 2010-02-04 19:18 ` Eric Miao
2010-02-04 19:18 ` Eric Miao
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Eric Miao @ 2010-02-04 19:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 11:09:22AM -0800, Eric Miao wrote:
>> commit fc14e7ca387688ca63eafa16d4aa3012898d096d
>> Author: Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@gmail.com>
>> Date: ? Mon Dec 28 11:05:55 2009 +0800
>>
>> ? ? [ARM] allow NR_IRQS to be larger than 256
>
> Don't you mean 512 ?
Exactly.
>
>> -#if NR_IRQS > 256
>> +#if NR_IRQS > 512
>> +#define HARDIRQ_BITS 10
>> +#elif NR_IRQS > 256
>> ?#define HARDIRQ_BITS 9
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [RFC PATCH 1/3] [ARM] allow NR_IRQS to be larger than 256
2010-02-04 19:18 ` Eric Miao
@ 2010-02-04 19:18 ` Eric Miao
2010-02-04 19:27 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Eric Miao @ 2010-02-04 19:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 11:09:22AM -0800, Eric Miao wrote:
>>> commit fc14e7ca387688ca63eafa16d4aa3012898d096d
>>> Author: Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@gmail.com>
>>> Date: ? Mon Dec 28 11:05:55 2009 +0800
>>>
>>> ? ? [ARM] allow NR_IRQS to be larger than 256
>>
>> Don't you mean 512 ?
>
> Exactly.
>
Maybe a subject of "allow .... to be in range of 256 to 512" will be better.
>>
>>> -#if NR_IRQS > 256
>>> +#if NR_IRQS > 512
>>> +#define HARDIRQ_BITS 10
>>> +#elif NR_IRQS > 256
>>> ?#define HARDIRQ_BITS 9
>>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [RFC PATCH 1/3] [ARM] allow NR_IRQS to be larger than 256
2010-02-04 19:18 ` Eric Miao
@ 2010-02-04 19:27 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Russell King - ARM Linux @ 2010-02-04 19:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 11:18:52AM -0800, Eric Miao wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> > <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 11:09:22AM -0800, Eric Miao wrote:
> >>> commit fc14e7ca387688ca63eafa16d4aa3012898d096d
> >>> Author: Eric Miao <eric.y.miao@gmail.com>
> >>> Date: ? Mon Dec 28 11:05:55 2009 +0800
> >>>
> >>> ? ? [ARM] allow NR_IRQS to be larger than 256
> >>
> >> Don't you mean 512 ?
> >
> > Exactly.
> >
>
> Maybe a subject of "allow .... to be in range of 256 to 512" will be better.
Which we already do - with 9 hard irq bits if NR_IRQS is larger than 256.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [RFC PATCH 1/3] [ARM] allow NR_IRQS to be larger than 256
2010-02-04 19:09 [RFC PATCH 1/3] [ARM] allow NR_IRQS to be larger than 256 Eric Miao
2010-02-04 19:14 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
@ 2010-02-04 19:29 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2010-02-04 20:05 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Gilles Chanteperdrix @ 2010-02-04 19:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
Eric Miao wrote:
> -#if NR_IRQS > 256
> +#if NR_IRQS > 512
> +#define HARDIRQ_BITS 10
> +#elif NR_IRQS > 256
> #define HARDIRQ_BITS 9
> #else
> #define HARDIRQ_BITS 8
Would not it be possible to use
#define HARDIRQ_BITS order_base_2(NR_IRQS)
to remove any limitation?
--
Gilles.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [RFC PATCH 1/3] [ARM] allow NR_IRQS to be larger than 256
2010-02-04 19:29 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
@ 2010-02-04 20:05 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-02-04 20:51 ` Eric Miao
0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Russell King - ARM Linux @ 2010-02-04 20:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 08:29:52PM +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Eric Miao wrote:
> > -#if NR_IRQS > 256
> > +#if NR_IRQS > 512
> > +#define HARDIRQ_BITS 10
> > +#elif NR_IRQS > 256
> > #define HARDIRQ_BITS 9
> > #else
> > #define HARDIRQ_BITS 8
>
> Would not it be possible to use
>
> #define HARDIRQ_BITS order_base_2(NR_IRQS)
HARDIRQ_BITS must be a preprocessor constant.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* [RFC PATCH 1/3] [ARM] allow NR_IRQS to be larger than 256
2010-02-04 20:05 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
@ 2010-02-04 20:51 ` Eric Miao
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Eric Miao @ 2010-02-04 20:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-arm-kernel
On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2010 at 08:29:52PM +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>> Eric Miao wrote:
>> > -#if NR_IRQS > 256
>> > +#if NR_IRQS > 512
>> > +#define HARDIRQ_BITS ? ? ? 10
>> > +#elif NR_IRQS > 256
>> > ?#define HARDIRQ_BITS ? ? ? 9
>> > ?#else
>> > ?#define HARDIRQ_BITS ? ? ? 8
>>
>> Would not it be possible to use
>>
>> #define HARDIRQ_BITS order_base_2(NR_IRQS)
>
> HARDIRQ_BITS must be a preprocessor constant.
>
Confirmed, log_order_2() won't compile.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-02-04 20:51 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-02-04 19:09 [RFC PATCH 1/3] [ARM] allow NR_IRQS to be larger than 256 Eric Miao
2010-02-04 19:14 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-02-04 19:18 ` Eric Miao
2010-02-04 19:18 ` Eric Miao
2010-02-04 19:27 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-02-04 19:29 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2010-02-04 20:05 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-02-04 20:51 ` Eric Miao
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox