Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 19 Feb 2021 16:13:15 +0000 | From | Mark Rutland <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/8] arm64: Support FIQ controller registration |
| |
On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 12:41:01AM +0900, Hector Martin wrote: > Hi Mark, > > Thanks for tackling this side of the problem!
No problem -- I have a vested interest in the arm64 exception management code lookin the way I expect/prefer! ;)
> On 19/02/2021 20.38, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > I'm hoping that we can somehow queue the first 6 patches of this series as a > > base for the M1 support. With that we can either cherry-pick a later version of > > the DAIF.IF patch here, or the M1 support series can take the FIQ handling > > patch. I've pushed the series out to my arm64/fiq branch [4] on kernel.org, > > atop v5.11. > > Looks good! I cherry picked my updated version of the DAIF.IF patch into > your series at [1] (3322522d), and then rebased the M1 series on top of it > (with the change to use set_handle_fiq(), minus all the other obsoleted FIQ > stuff) at [2]. It all boots and works as expected. > > I think it makes sense for you to take the DAIF.IF patch, as it goes along > with this series. Then we can base the M1 series off of it.
Sure; that works for me!
> If you think that works, I can send it off as a one-off reply to the > version in this series and we can review it here if you want, or > otherwise feel free to cherry-pick it into a v2 (CC as appropriate).
If you could do a one-off reply, that'd be fantastic -- that way lore.kernel.org will archive it and it gives people a chance to provide any tags or comments before the next respin of the whole series.
> If this all makes sense, the v3 of the M1 series will then be based off of > this patchset as in [2], and I'll link to your tree in the cover letter so > others know where to apply it.
As a heads-up, I'm currently treating my arm64/fiq branch as unstable (and I've already applied a typo fix since this posting), but I can tag versions of that to make it possible to refer to a specific version.
I'll make sure to do that once I fold in the new DAIF.[IF] patch, since I assume that's the first version worth noting as a base.
> Arnd (CCed) is going to be merging that one via the SoC tree, so as > long as we coordinate a stable base once everything is reviewed and > ready to merge, I believe it should all work out fine on the way up.
That sounds about right to me.
I think the first step is for Marc and I to figure out how the core IRQ bits go in (some of that might be an fix early in the current v5.12 cycle), and I'd expect to have a stable branch atop somewhere between v5.12-rc1 and v5.12-rc4. For context, usually the arm64 core bits get based on the previous rc3/rc4.
Thanks, Mark.
> Just for completeness, the current DAIF.IF patch in the context of the > original series is at [3] (4dd6330f), in case that's useful to someone for > some reason (since there were conflicts due to the refactoring happening > before it, it changed a bit). > > [1] https://github.com/AsahiLinux/linux/tree/fiq > [2] https://github.com/AsahiLinux/linux/tree/upstream-bringup-v3 > [3] https://github.com/AsahiLinux/linux/tree/upstream-bringup-v2.5 > > -- > Hector Martin (marcan@marcan.st) > Public Key: https://mrcn.st/pub
| |