Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip: xilinx: Add support for multiple instances | From | Michal Simek <> | Date | Thu, 6 Feb 2020 10:11:27 +0100 |
| |
On 06. 02. 20 10:09, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 2020-02-06 07:06, Michal Simek wrote: >> On 05. 02. 20 17:53, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>> On 2020-02-05 14:05, Mubin Usman Sayyed wrote: > > [...] > >>>> unsigned int xintc_get_irq(void) >>>> { >>>> - unsigned int hwirq, irq = -1; >>>> + int hwirq, irq = -1; >>>> >>>> - hwirq = xintc_read(IVR); >>>> + hwirq = xintc_read(primary_intc->base + IVR); >>>> if (hwirq != -1U) >>>> - irq = irq_find_mapping(xintc_irqc->root_domain, hwirq); >>>> + irq = irq_find_mapping(primary_intc->root_domain, >>>> hwirq); >>>> >>>> pr_debug("irq-xilinx: hwirq=%d, irq=%d\n", hwirq, irq); >>> >>> I have the ugly feeling I'm reading the same code twice... Surely you >>> can >>> make these two functions common code. >> >> I have some questions regarding this. >> I have updated one patchset which is adding support for Microblaze SMP. >> And when I was looking at current wiring of this driver I have decided >> to change it. >> >> I have enabled GENERIC_IRQ_MULTI_HANDLER and HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ. >> This driver calls set_handle_irq(xil_intc_handle_irq) >> and MB do_IRQ() call handle_arch_irq() >> and IRQ routine here is using handle_domain_irq(). >> >> I would expect that this chained IRQ handler can also use >> handle_domain_irq(). >> >> Is that correct understanding? > > handle_domain_irq() implies that you have a set of pt_regs, representing > the context you interrupted. You can't fake that up, so I can't see how > you use it in a chained context.
ok. What's your recommendation for chained controller? Just go with irq_find_mapping?
> > [...] > >>>> + intc_dev->name = intc->full_name; >>> >>> No. The world doesn't need to see the OF path of your interrupt >>> controller in /proc/cpuinfo. >>> The name that was there before was perfectly descriptive, please stick >>> to it. >> >> It should be showing name like interrupt-controller@41800000. >> Do you think that we really should stick with just fixed name? >> There could be multiple instances in the system and you will have no >> idea how they are connected. > > What is that used for? Debugging. We have a whole infrastructure for that > (GENERIC_IRQ_DEBUGFS), which is the right tool for the job. If it needs > improvement, please let me know what is missing.
Let me take a look.
> Also, anything in /proc is ABI, so we don't change it randomly.
ok.
Thanks, Michal
| |