[PATCH/RFC 0/4] ARM: shmobile: Correct masks for GIC PPI interrupts

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Simon,

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 1:13 AM, Simon Horman <horms at verge.net.au> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:57:15AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> This patch series corrects the masks in the second interrupt cells for
>> Private Peripheral Interrupts in dtsi files for the shmobile family of
>> SoCs.
>>
>> It's my understanding this mask should reflect the actual number of CPU
>> cores the interrupt is wired too.
>> Is that correct?
>>
>>   - Hence it should be "GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(2)" on dual-core CPUs, like
>>     r8a7791 and r8a7794 (the first two patches),
>>   - Should it be "GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(8)" on big.LITTLE configurations
>>     with four Cortex-A15 cores and four Cortex-A7 cores?
>>     Or should the interrupts be delivered to the four Cortex-A15 cores
>>     only by default?
>>     The last two RFC-patches implement the former for r8a7790 and
>>     r8a73a4.
>>
>> Note that incorrect masks for GIC PPI interrupts are not limited to
>> shmobile. Presumably the interrupt specifiers got copied around a lot,
>> cfr. the proliferation of "GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(4)" (and the older
>> hardcoded "0xf0x" variant) in various dtsi files, not always limited to
>> quad-core CPUs.
>>
>> This was tested on r8a7791/koelsch, which uses the arch timer interrupt.
>>
>> Thanks for your feedback!
>>
>> Geert Uytterhoeven (4):
>>   ARM: shmobile: r8a7791: Correct mask for GIC PPI interrupts
>>   ARM: shmobile: r8a7794: Correct mask for GIC PPI interrupts
>
> Hi Geert,
>
> the above two patches seem like they could be queued up.
> Shall I do so?

I think it's safe. Thanks!

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds