Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Oct 2014 19:50:53 +0800 | From | Jisheng Zhang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/3] irqchip: dw-apb-ictl: add PM support |
| |
Hi Sebastian,
On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 04:44:49 -0700 Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/08/2014 01:31 PM, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > > Hi Thomas, Sebastian, > > > > On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:52:54 -0700 > > Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > >>> On 09/23/2014 08:35 AM, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > >>>> This patch adds in support for S2R for dw-apb-ictl irqchip driver. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> drivers/irqchip/irq-dw-apb-ictl.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ > >>>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-dw-apb-ictl.c > >>>> b/drivers/irqchip/irq-dw-apb-ictl.c > >>>> index c136b67..53bb732 100644 > >>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-dw-apb-ictl.c > >>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-dw-apb-ictl.c > >>>> @@ -50,6 +50,21 @@ static void dw_apb_ictl_handler(unsigned int irq, > >>>> struct irq_desc *desc) > >>>> chained_irq_exit(chip, desc); > >>>> } > >>>> > >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PM > >>>> +static void dw_apb_ictl_resume(struct irq_data *d) > >>>> +{ > >>>> + struct irq_chip_generic *gc = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d); > >>>> + struct irq_chip_type *ct = irq_data_get_chip_type(d); > >>>> + > >>>> + irq_gc_lock(gc); > >>>> + writel_relaxed(~0, gc->reg_base + ct->regs.enable); > >>>> + writel_relaxed(*ct->mask_cache, gc->reg_base + ct->regs.mask); > >>>> + irq_gc_unlock(gc); > >>>> +} > >>> > >>> I agree with the overall change, but may this also be suited for a > >>> generic irq_chip helper instead of being a driver specific one? > >>> > >>> Maybe Thomas or Jason can comment on this. > >> > >> If we have enough similar resume callbacks, yes. > >> > >>> Also, now that you are using writel_relaxed, I understand that both > >>> writes above can happen in any order? Are there any implication we > >>> have to consider, i.e. do we require any of the registers above to > >>> be written first? > > > > The registers sits at device type memory, the writes should happen in the > > same order as before. > > Jisheng, > > it is not about the location of the register but, as far as I > understand, when using {readl,writel}_relaxed the compiler is > free to reorder the calls. So, if there is a strict order we
The "volatile" in readl/writel relaxed implementations should prevent the compiler to do reorder. Or I misunderstand something?
Thanks, Jisheng
> want to ensure, we have to use non-relaxed {readl,writel}. > > The performance penalty of non-relaxed calls can be ignored anyway > as it is done only once after resume. > > Sebastian
| |