Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip: xilinx: Add support for multiple instances | From | Michal Simek <> | Date | Thu, 6 Feb 2020 10:17:50 +0100 |
| |
On 06. 02. 20 10:15, Marc Zyngier wrote: > 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.
Thanks. Michal
| |