Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 06 Feb 2020 09:15:54 +0000 | From | Marc Zyngier <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip: xilinx: Add support for multiple instances |
| |
On 2020-02-06 09:11, Michal Simek wrote: > 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?
For now, yes. I have (distant) plans to improve this.
M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
| |