From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [203.10.76.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx.ozlabs.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (verified OK)) by bilbo.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E475EB7083 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 10:32:33 +1000 (EST) Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org (bilbo.ozlabs.org [203.10.76.25]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "bilbo.ozlabs.org", Issuer "CAcert Class 3 Root" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2A80DDD1B for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 10:32:33 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/mpic: Fix MPIC_BROKEN_REGREAD on non broken MPICs From: Michael Ellerman To: Olof Johansson In-Reply-To: <20090706135926.GA16205@lixom.net> References: <6c9c0889feaceeea55bd2b6fef0c19e408425ef5.1246846125.git.michael@ellerman.id.au> <20090706135926.GA16205@lixom.net> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-oQk9mFOq47kHW9OIMS8h" Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:32:33 +1000 Message-Id: <1246926753.4449.1.camel@concordia> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org Reply-To: michael@ellerman.id.au List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --=-oQk9mFOq47kHW9OIMS8h Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 08:59 -0500, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 12:08:52PM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > The workaround enabled by CONFIG_MPIC_BROKEN_REGREAD does not work > > on non-broken MPICs. The symptom is no interrupts being received. > >=20 > > The fix is twofold. Firstly the code was broken for multiple isus, > > we need to index into the shadow array with the src_no, not the idx. > > Secondly, we always do the read, but only use the VECPRI_MASK and > > VECPRI_ACTIVITY bits from the hardware, the rest of "val" comes > > from the shadow. >=20 > I'm travelling without remote access to a machine to test this on. Given > that it changes the errata workaround (subtly), I'd appreciate the chance > to give it a go before it gets merged. Sure. I was also wondering, was this workaround ever required in a released chip - or was it just dev samples? If it's the latter, do we still need to carry it at all? cheers --=-oQk9mFOq47kHW9OIMS8h Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkpSl5cACgkQdSjSd0sB4dIwFgCeP3wf3+EYzsZ20XukohT663fH yJgAniHau7T+++o1ZRaWdQ2PS7VKBC9w =lJmT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-oQk9mFOq47kHW9OIMS8h--