[PATCH 1/1] irq-gic: add capability to set bypass flag in GIC
Anup Patel
apatel at apm.com
Tue Nov 26 10:52:11 EST 2013
On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 9:05 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Anup Patel <anup at brainfault.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Rob Herring <robherring2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 2:41 AM, Anup Patel <anup at brainfault.org> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier at arm.com> wrote:
>>>>> [dropping <patches at apm.com> from the CC list, as someone seems to have
>>>>> tripped on the config file, and I'm tired of getting bounces]
>>>>>
>>>>> Feng,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 19/11/13 21:42, Feng Kan wrote:
>>>>>> The GIC-400 implementation allows for FIQ and IRQ bypass. In the
>>>>>> X-Gene implementation, the FIQ bypass must be enabled at all time.
>>>>>> Otherwise, some PPI will appear as FIQ and cause kernel problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> How comes? Are only PPIs affected? When you say "some PPIs", can you be
>>>>> more specific?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Feng Kan <fkan at apm.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c | 15 +++++++++++----
>>>>>> include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic.h | 4 ++--
>>>>>> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>>>> index d0e9480..aa7342e 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
>>>>>> @@ -65,6 +65,7 @@ struct gic_chip_data {
>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>> struct irq_domain *domain;
>>>>>> unsigned int gic_irqs;
>>>>>> + unsigned int bypass_flag;
>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_GIC_NON_BANKED
>>>>>> void __iomem *(*get_base)(union gic_base *);
>>>>>> #endif
>>>>>> @@ -450,7 +451,7 @@ static void gic_cpu_init(struct gic_chip_data *gic)
>>>>>> writel_relaxed(0xa0a0a0a0, dist_base + GIC_DIST_PRI + i * 4 / 4);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> writel_relaxed(0xf0, base + GIC_CPU_PRIMASK);
>>>>>> - writel_relaxed(1, base + GIC_CPU_CTRL);
>>>>>> + writel_relaxed(gic->bypass_flag | 1, base + GIC_CPU_CTRL);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void gic_cpu_if_down(void)
>>>>>> @@ -591,7 +592,7 @@ static void gic_cpu_restore(unsigned int gic_nr)
>>>>>> writel_relaxed(0xa0a0a0a0, dist_base + GIC_DIST_PRI + i * 4);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> writel_relaxed(0xf0, cpu_base + GIC_CPU_PRIMASK);
>>>>>> - writel_relaxed(1, cpu_base + GIC_CPU_CTRL);
>>>>>> + writel_relaxed(gic_data[gic_nr].bypass_flag | 1, cpu_base + GIC_CPU_CTRL);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> static int gic_notifier(struct notifier_block *self, unsigned long cmd, void *v)
>>>>>> @@ -733,7 +734,8 @@ const struct irq_domain_ops gic_irq_domain_ops = {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> void __init gic_init_bases(unsigned int gic_nr, int irq_start,
>>>>>> void __iomem *dist_base, void __iomem *cpu_base,
>>>>>> - u32 percpu_offset, struct device_node *node)
>>>>>> + u32 percpu_offset, u32 bypass_val,
>>>>>> + struct device_node *node)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> irq_hw_number_t hwirq_base;
>>>>>> struct gic_chip_data *gic;
>>>>>> @@ -821,6 +823,7 @@ void __init gic_init_bases(unsigned int gic_nr, int irq_start,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> set_handle_irq(gic_handle_irq);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> + gic->bypass_flag = (bypass_val & 0xf) << 4;
>>>>>
>>>>> Beware, the top 2 bits are reserved on GICv1, and shouldn't be messed with.
>>>>>
>>>>>> gic_chip.flags |= gic_arch_extn.flags;
>>>>>> gic_dist_init(gic);
>>>>>> gic_cpu_init(gic);
>>>>>> @@ -835,6 +838,7 @@ int __init gic_of_init(struct device_node *node, struct device_node *parent)
>>>>>> void __iomem *cpu_base;
>>>>>> void __iomem *dist_base;
>>>>>> u32 percpu_offset;
>>>>>> + u32 bypass_val;
>>>>>> int irq;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (WARN_ON(!node))
>>>>>> @@ -849,7 +853,10 @@ int __init gic_of_init(struct device_node *node, struct device_node *parent)
>>>>>> if (of_property_read_u32(node, "cpu-offset", &percpu_offset))
>>>>>> percpu_offset = 0;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - gic_init_bases(gic_cnt, -1, dist_base, cpu_base, percpu_offset, node);
>>>>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(node, "bypass-flags", &bypass_val))
>>>>>> + bypass_val = 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> [adding Mark on Cc, so he can comment on the DT parts]
>>>>>
>>>>> Where's the DT documentation update? Also, as this is an
>>>>> implementation-specific quirk, you should consider using a separate
>>>>> compatible string and move the handling of this issue into some X-Gene
>>>>> specific code.
>>>>
>>>> Adding separate compatible string for X-Gene specific GIC will break
>>>> VGIC code for X-Gene because VGIC code looks for DT node compatible
>>>> to "arm,cortex-a15-gic". We don't want to break currently working VGIC
>>>> code for X-Gene.
>>>>
>>>> The Legacy-IRQ bypass disable and Legacy-FIQ bypass disable is a
>>>> feature of GIC-400 and its not X-Gene specific. The only difference in X-Gene
>>>> is that we use PPI31 (Legacy-IRQ) for timer and PPI28 (Legacy-FIQ) for perf
>>>> event. The issue is that IRQBypDisGrp0, FIQBypDisGrp0, IRQBypDisGrp1
>>>> and FIQBypDisGrp1 bits are 0 by default and for X-Gene we need to set
>>>> these bits to 1 so that GIC-400 does not bypass PPI31 (Legacy-IRQ) and
>>>> PPI28 (Legacy-FIQ).
>>>>
>>>> We should have more cleaner and optional device tree binding for GIC
>>>> which can help us set IRQBypDisGrp0, FIQBypDisGrp0, IRQBypDisGrp1
>>>> and FIQBypDisGrp1 bits for X-Gene.
>>>
>>> IIRC, all these bits are secure mode only (or only a subset are
>>> banked). Whether an SoC supports secure mode or not, the current
>>> policy for the kernel is to do any secure mode setup in firmware or
>>> bootloader.
>>
>> Group0 are secure interrupts and Group1 are non-secure interrupts.
>
> Right, but the non-secure view of the GIC has no concept of groups.
> They are only visible in secure mode.
>
>> Does this mean we should only touch IRQBypDisGrp1 and FIQBypDisGrp1
>> bits from kernel ??
>
> No, the kernel should only touch bits defined (by the GIC arch spec)
> to be available in non-secure mode. Specifically this is bit 0 only. I
> guess you will have to change accesses to cpu ctrl reg to a
> read-mod-write to preserve any bits you need set.
Thats wrong.
If you refer page 124 & 125 of GICv2 architecture reference manual (more
specifically IHI0048B_gic_architecture_specification.pdf) then you will
find Figure 4-23 and Table 4-30 which clearly shows that IRQBypDisGrp1
and FIQBypDisGrp1 bits are part of the Non-secure copy of GICC_CTRL
register hence we can access this bits from kernel.
--
Anup
>
> Rob
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list