[RFC PATCH v9 1/4] ARM: gic: consolidate PPI handling
Russell King - ARM Linux
linux at arm.linux.org.uk
Fri Jul 22 05:42:54 EDT 2011
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 05:57:25PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> @@ -256,12 +260,33 @@ void __init gic_cascade_irq(unsigned int gic_nr, unsigned int irq)
> irq_set_chained_handler(irq, gic_handle_cascade_irq);
> }
>
> +static unsigned int gic_nr_ppis, gic_ppi_base;
> +
> +#define PPI_IRQACT(nr) \
> + { \
> + .handler = percpu_timer_handler, \
Won't this break on non-SMP non-localtimer builds?
> + .flags = IRQF_PERCPU | IRQF_TIMER, \
> + .irq = nr, \
> + .name = "PPI-" # nr, \
> + }
> +
> +static struct irqaction ppi_irqaction_template[16] __initdata = {
> + PPI_IRQACT(0), PPI_IRQACT(1), PPI_IRQACT(2), PPI_IRQACT(3),
> + PPI_IRQACT(4), PPI_IRQACT(5), PPI_IRQACT(6), PPI_IRQACT(7),
> + PPI_IRQACT(8), PPI_IRQACT(9), PPI_IRQACT(10), PPI_IRQACT(11),
> + PPI_IRQACT(12), PPI_IRQACT(13), PPI_IRQACT(14), PPI_IRQACT(15),
> +};
> +
> +static struct irqaction *ppi_irqaction;
> +
> static void __init gic_dist_init(struct gic_chip_data *gic,
> unsigned int irq_start)
> {
> unsigned int gic_irqs, irq_limit, i;
> void __iomem *base = gic->dist_base;
> u32 cpumask = 1 << smp_processor_id();
> + u32 dist_ctr, nrcpus;
nrcpus doesn't seem to be used. With that eliminated, dist_ctr doesn't
seem to have much purpose.
> + u32 nrppis = 0, ppi_base = 0;
Might be better to move this inside the "if (gic == &gic_data[0]) {" block,
along with the printk too.
>
> cpumask |= cpumask << 8;
> cpumask |= cpumask << 16;
> @@ -272,11 +297,38 @@ static void __init gic_dist_init(struct gic_chip_data *gic,
> * Find out how many interrupts are supported.
> * The GIC only supports up to 1020 interrupt sources.
> */
> - gic_irqs = readl_relaxed(base + GIC_DIST_CTR) & 0x1f;
> - gic_irqs = (gic_irqs + 1) * 32;
> + dist_ctr = readl_relaxed(base + GIC_DIST_CTR);
> + gic_irqs = ((dist_ctr & 0x1f) + 1) * 32;
> if (gic_irqs > 1020)
> gic_irqs = 1020;
>
> + /* Find out how many CPUs are supported (8 max). */
> + nrcpus = ((dist_ctr >> 5) & 7) + 1;
As mentioned above, the above change can be killed because it doesn't
alter anything which is used.
> +
> + /*
> + * Nobody would be insane enough to use PPIs on a secondary
> + * GIC, right?
> + */
> + if (gic == &gic_data[0]) {
> + nrppis = 16 - (irq_start & 15);
> + ppi_base = gic->irq_offset + 32 - nrppis;
> + ppi_irqaction = kzalloc(sizeof(*ppi_irqaction) * nrppis,
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!ppi_irqaction) {
> + pr_err("GIC: Can't allocate PPI memory");
> + nrppis = 0;
> + ppi_base = 0;
> + }
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < nrppis; i++)
> + ppi_irqaction[i] = ppi_irqaction_template[i + (ppi_base & 15)];
> + gic_nr_ppis = nrppis;
> + gic_ppi_base = ppi_base;
Would:
ppi_irqaction = kmemdup(ppi_irqaction_template,
sizeof(*ppi_irqaction) * nrppis,
GFP_KERNEL);
if (ppi_irqaction) {
gic_nr_ppis = nrppis;
gic_ppi_base = ppi_base;
}
be a shorter way to write what you have above?
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list