From: will.deacon@arm•com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 5/5] arm_pmu: acpi: request IRQs up-front
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 17:36:47 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171211173647.GA3275@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171101141239.45340-6-mark.rutland@arm.com>
On Wed, Nov 01, 2017 at 02:12:39PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> We can't request IRQs in atomic context, so for ACPI systems we'll have
> to request them up-front, and later associate them with CPUs.
>
> This patch reorganises the arm_pmu code to do so. As we no longer have
> the arm_pmu strucutre at probe time, a number of prototypes need to be
> adjusted, requiring changes to the common arm_pmu code and arm_pmu
> platform code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm•com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm•com>
> ---
> drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c | 37 +++----------------------------------
> drivers/perf/arm_pmu_acpi.c | 20 +++++++-------------
> drivers/perf/arm_pmu_platform.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++---
> include/linux/perf/arm_pmu.h | 13 +++++++++++--
> 4 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> index 287b3edfb4cc..534b4b3fb440 100644
> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> @@ -323,13 +323,6 @@ validate_group(struct perf_event *event)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static struct arm_pmu_platdata *armpmu_get_platdata(struct arm_pmu *armpmu)
> -{
> - struct platform_device *pdev = armpmu->plat_device;
> -
> - return pdev ? dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev) : NULL;
> -}
> -
> static irqreturn_t armpmu_dispatch_irq(int irq, void *dev)
> {
> struct arm_pmu *armpmu;
> @@ -542,7 +535,7 @@ int armpmu_count_irq_users(const int irq)
> return count;
> }
>
> -void __armpmu_free_irq(int irq, int cpu)
> +void armpmu_free_irq(int irq, int cpu)
> {
> if (per_cpu(cpu_irq, cpu) == 0)
> return;
> @@ -559,16 +552,7 @@ void __armpmu_free_irq(int irq, int cpu)
> per_cpu(cpu_irq, cpu) = 0;
> }
>
> -void armpmu_free_irq(struct arm_pmu *armpmu, int cpu)
> -{
> - struct pmu_hw_events __percpu *hw_events = armpmu->hw_events;
> - int irq = per_cpu(hw_events->irq, cpu);
> -
> - __armpmu_free_irq(irq, cpu);
> - per_cpu(cpu_armpmu, cpu) = NULL;
> -}
> -
> -int armpmu_request_irq_flags(int irq, unsigned long irq_flags, int cpu)
> +int armpmu_request_irq(int irq, unsigned long irq_flags, int cpu)
> {
> int err = 0;
> const irq_handler_t handler = armpmu_dispatch_irq;
> @@ -603,24 +587,9 @@ int armpmu_request_irq_flags(int irq, unsigned long irq_flags, int cpu)
> return err;
> }
>
> -int armpmu_request_irq(struct arm_pmu *armpmu, int cpu)
> +void armpmu_bind_cpu(struct arm_pmu *armpmu, int cpu)
> {
> - struct arm_pmu_platdata *platdata = armpmu_get_platdata(armpmu);
> - unsigned long irq_flags;
> - struct pmu_hw_events __percpu *hw_events = armpmu->hw_events;
> - int irq = per_cpu(hw_events->irq, cpu);
> - if (!irq)
> - return 0;
> -
> - if (platdata && platdata->irq_flags) {
> - irq_flags = platdata->irq_flags;
> - } else {
> - irq_flags = ARM_PMU_IRQ_FLAGS;
> - }
> -
> per_cpu(cpu_armpmu, cpu) = armpmu;
Can we not make the binding implicit in armpmu_{request,free}_irq?
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-11 17:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-01 14:12 [PATCH 0/5] arm_pmu: fix lockdep issues with ACPI systems Mark Rutland
2017-11-01 14:12 ` [PATCH 1/5] arm_pmu: fold platform helpers into platform code Mark Rutland
2017-11-01 14:12 ` [PATCH 2/5] arm_pmu: have armpmu_alloc() take GFP flags Mark Rutland
2017-12-06 6:54 ` Zhangshaokun
2017-12-11 17:37 ` Will Deacon
2017-12-11 18:02 ` Mark Rutland
2017-11-01 14:12 ` [PATCH 3/5] arm_pmu: acpi: check for mismatched PPIs Mark Rutland
2017-12-11 17:37 ` Will Deacon
2017-12-11 18:08 ` Mark Rutland
2017-12-11 18:43 ` Will Deacon
2017-11-01 14:12 ` [PATCH 4/5] arm_pmu: note IRQs/PMUs per-cpu Mark Rutland
2017-12-11 17:36 ` Will Deacon
2017-12-11 18:15 ` Mark Rutland
2017-11-01 14:12 ` [PATCH 5/5] arm_pmu: acpi: request IRQs up-front Mark Rutland
2017-12-11 17:36 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2017-12-11 17:55 ` Mark Rutland
2017-12-11 18:45 ` Will Deacon
2017-11-01 17:02 ` [PATCH 0/5] arm_pmu: fix lockdep issues with ACPI systems Tyler Baicar
2017-12-11 17:38 ` Will Deacon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20171211173647.GA3275@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm$(echo .)com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox