From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 02/10] ARM: vic: MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER handler Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2011 13:31:02 +0000 Message-ID: <20111103133102.GM12913@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1317206507-18867-1-git-send-email-jamie@jamieiles.com> <1317206507-18867-3-git-send-email-jamie@jamieiles.com> <20110928203905.GB2838@ponder.secretlab.ca> <20110929093009.GM17204@pulham.picochip.com> <20111102134024.GE19187@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20111102140811.GA22491@totoro> <20111103125136.GL12913@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: viresh.kumar-qxv4g6HH51o@public.gmane.org, kgene.kim-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org, linus.walleij-0IS4wlFg1OjSUeElwK9/Pw@public.gmane.org, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, rob.herring-bsGFqQB8/DxBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org, hsweeten-3FF4nKcrg1dE2c76skzGb0EOCMrvLtNR@public.gmane.org, rajeev-dlh.kumar-qxv4g6HH51o@public.gmane.org, ben-linux-elnMNo+KYs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org, STEricsson_nomadik_linux-nkJGhpqTU55BDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org, rubini-9wsNiZum9E8@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, rmallon-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 02:00:15PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > = > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0stat =3D readl_relaxed(vic->base + VIC_IRQ_STATUS); > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0while (stat) { > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0while (stat) { > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0irq =3D ffs(stat) - 1; > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0stat &=3D ~(1 << irq); > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0handle_irq(irq); > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0} > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0stat =3D readl_relaxed(vic->base + VIC_I= RQ_STATUS); > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0} > > > > This ensures that we process all interrupts found pending before we > > re-check for any new interrupts pending. =A0Arguably this is a much > > fairer implementation (and may mean if things get irrevokably stuck, > > things like sysrq via the console uart may still work.) > = > I really like the looks of this, Jamie can you do it like that? > = > Maybe some smallish comment about what's going on can be > good for future generations reading that code... Bear in mind that it gets a little more complex when you have more than one VIC, because the outer loop should be across all VICs.