lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 02/26] arm64: cpufeature: Add cpufeature for IRQ priority masking
From
Date


On 25/05/18 11:48, Julien Thierry wrote:
>
>
> On 25/05/18 11:41, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>> On 25/05/18 11:39, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 25/05/18 11:36, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>>> On 25/05/18 11:17, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 25/05/18 11:04, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
>>>>>> On 25/05/18 10:49, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>>>>>> Add a cpufeature indicating whether a cpu supports masking
>>>>>>> interrupts
>>>>>>> by priority.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How is this different from the SYSREG_GIC_CPUIF cap ? Is it just
>>>>>> the description ?
>>>>>
>>>>> More or less.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is just to have an easier condition in the rest of the series.
>>>>> Basically the PRIO masking feature is enabled if we have a GICv3
>>>>> CPUIF working *and* the option was selected at build time. Before
>>>>> this meant that I was checking for the GIC_CPUIF cap inside #ifdefs
>>>>> (and putting alternatives depending on that inside #ifdefs as well).
>>>>>
>>>>> Having this as a separate feature feels easier to manage in the
>>>>> code. It also makes it clearer at boot time that the kernel will be
>>>>> using irq priorities (although I admit it was not the initial
>>>>> intention):
>>>>>
>>>>> [    0.000000] CPU features: detected: IRQ priority masking
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But yes that new feature will be detected only if SYSREG_GIC_CPUIF
>>>>> gets detected as well.
>>>>
>>>> Well, you could always wrap the check like :
>>>>
>>>> static inline bool system_has_irq_priority_masking(void)
>>>> {
>>>>      return (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_YOUR_CONFIG) &&
>>>> cpus_have_const_cap(HWCAP_SYSREG_GIC_CPUIF));
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> and use it everywhere.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, but I can't use that in the asm parts that use alternatives and
>>> would need to surround them in #ifdef... :\
>>
>> I thought there is _ALTERNATIVE_CFG() to base the alternative depend
>> on a CONFIG_xxx ?
>> Doesn't that solve the problem ?
>
> Right, I didn't see that one. It should work yes.
>
> I'll try that when working on the next version.

I've been trying to use this now, but I can't figure out how.

The _ALTERNATIVE_CFG does not seem to work in assembly code (despite
having its own definition for __ASSEMBLY__), and the alternative_insn
does not seem to be suited for instructions that take operands (or more
than one operand)

If I am mistaken, can you provide an example of how to use this in
assembly with instructions having more than 1 operand?

Cheers,

--
Julien Thierry

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-12 15:47    [W:0.067 / U:3.508 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site