lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86: io-apic - get rid of __DO_ACTION macro
[Yinghai Lu - Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:30:39AM -0700]
| On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 2:31 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
| >
| > * Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
| >
| >> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote:
| >> > On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 12:13 AM, Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com> wrote:
| >> > ...
| >> >>
| >> >> hope we can keep using MACRO..
| >> >>
| >> >> YH
| >> >>
| >> >
| >> > Btw, Yinghai, what does it mean? To not touch this macro at all?
| >> > Or you mean about implementation issue (ie the design itself)?
| >>
| >> do not touch this macro... and may revisit after 2.6.28
| >
| > anything you are particularly worried about? Regressions we should be
| > able to find pretty quickly, in a central macro like that - and the
| > macro is quite ugly.
| >
|
| ok, let remove unneeded "if", and use function pointer...
|
| void (*extra_action_t)(struct irq_pin_list *entry);
|
| +static inline void io_apic_modify_irq(unsigned int irq,
| + int mask_and, int mask_or,
| + int mask_and_not, extra_action_t action)
| +{
| + int pin;
| + struct irq_cfg *cfg;
| + struct irq_pin_list *entry;
| + cfg = irq_cfg(irq);
| + for (entry = cfg->irq_2_pin; entry != NULL; entry = entry->next) {
| + unsigned int reg;
| + pin = entry->pin;
| + reg = io_apic_read(entry->apic, 0x10 + pin * 2);
| + reg &= mask_and;
| + reg |= mask_or;
| + reg &= ~mask_and_not;
| + io_apic_modify(entry->apic, 0x10 + pin * 2, reg);
| + if (action)
| + action(entry);
| + }
| +}
|
| +void extra_read(struct irq_pin_list *entry)
| + {
| + /*
| + * Synchronize the IO-APIC and the CPU by doing
| + * a dummy read from the IO-APIC
| + */
| + struct io_apic __iomem *io_apic;
| + io_apic = io_apic_base(entry->apic);
| + readl(&io_apic->data);
| + }
|
|
| YH
|

Yinghai, I've posted second version before you
proposed this. Let me update it then. (though
I don't think if we would need some extra actions
instead of syncs by additional read except for possible
erranious chips). Anyway - will repost updated version.
Thanks.

- Cyrill -


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-10 19:47    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans