Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 09/15] irq: arm: perform irqentry in entry code | From | Vladimir Murzin <> | Date | Sat, 23 Oct 2021 13:06:25 +0100 |
| |
On 10/22/21 7:43 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Fri, 22 Oct 2021 18:58:54 +0100, > Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 05:34:20PM +0100, Vladimir Murzin wrote: >>> On 10/22/21 4:36 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: >>>> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 04:18:18PM +0100, Vladimir Murzin wrote: >>>>> Hi Mark, >>>>> >>>>> On 10/21/21 7:02 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: >>>>>> +/* >>>>>> + * TODO: restructure the ARMv7M entry logic so that this entry logic can live >>>>>> + * in arch code. >>>>>> + */ >>>>>> +asmlinkage void __exception_irq_entry >>>>>> +static void nvic_handle_irq(irq_hw_number_t hwirq, struct pt_regs *regs) >>>>> >>>>> I'm seeing build time failure... >>>>> >>>>> drivers/irqchip/irq-nvic.c:50:8: error: two or more data types in declaration specifiers >>>>> static void nvic_handle_irq(irq_hw_number_t hwirq, struct pt_regs *regs) >>>>> ^~~~ >>>>> drivers/irqchip/irq-nvic.c:50:13: warning: 'nvic_handle_irq' defined but not used [-Wunused-function] >>>>> static void nvic_handle_irq(irq_hw_number_t hwirq, struct pt_regs *regs) >>>>> >>>>> I've fixed that locally and planing to give it a go... >>>> >>>> Ah, whoops. I've removed the extraneous `static void` from >>>> nvic_handle_irq() and build tested that as part of stm32_defconfig. >>>> >>>> The updated version is in my irq/handle-domain-irq branch at: >>>> >>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git >>>> >>> >>> $ cat /proc/interrupts >>> CPU0 >>> 16: 24 nvic_irq 4 Edge mps2-clkevt >>> 17: 0 nvic_irq 32 Edge mps2-uart-rx >>> 18: 6 nvic_irq 33 Edge mps2-uart-tx >>> 19: 0 nvic_irq 47 Edge mps2-uart-overrun >>> Err: 0 >>> >>> So if it helps feel free to add my >>> >>> Tested-by: Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@arm.com> # ARMv7M >> >> Thanks! >> >> I've folded that in and uppdated the branch. >> >>> As for TODO, is [1] look something you have been thinking of? IIUC, >>> the show stopper is that hwirq is being passed from exception entry >>> which retrieved via xPSR (IPSR to be precise). OTOH hwirq also available >>> via Interrupt Controller Status Register (ICSR) thus can be used in >>> driver itself... I gave [1] a go and it runs fine, yet I admit I might >>> be missing something... >> >> I hadn't thought about it in much detail, but that looks good! >> >> I was wondering if we needed something like a >> handle_arch_vectored_irq(), but if we can rely on the ICSR that seems >> simpler overall. I'm not at all familiar with M-class, so I'm not sure >> if there are pitfalls in this area. > > Why can't we just use IPSR instead from the C code? It has the > potential of being of lower latency then a MMIO read (though I have no > idea whether it makes a material difference on M-class) and from what > I can see in the arch spec, they are strictly equivalent.
Hmmm, less arch specific asm(s) in driver code, no?
Cheers Vladimir
> > Thanks, > > M. >
| |