Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 06/17] irqchip/gic-v3: Configure SGIs as standard interrupts

From: Valentin Schneider <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2020 19:25:46 +0100

On 24/06/20 20:58, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Change the way we deal with GICv3 SGIs by turning them into proper
> IRQs, and calling into the arch code to register the interrupt range
> instead of a callback.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <[email-masked]>
> ---
>  drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c | 81 +++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>  1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> index 19b294ed48ba..d275e9b9533d 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> @@ -36,6 +36,8 @@
>  #define FLAGS_WORKAROUND_GICR_WAKER_MSM8996	(1ULL << 0)
>  #define FLAGS_WORKAROUND_CAVIUM_ERRATUM_38539	(1ULL << 1)
>
> +#define GIC_IRQ_TYPE_PARTITION	(GIC_IRQ_TYPE_LPI + 1)
> +

Nit: this piqued my interest but ended up being just a define shuffle; As a
member of the git speleologists' guild, I'd be overjoyed with having a
small notion of that in the changelog.

>  struct redist_region {
>       void __iomem		*redist_base;
>       phys_addr_t		phys_base;
> @@ -657,38 +659,14 @@ static asmlinkage void __exception_irq_entry gic_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs
>       if ((irqnr >= 1020 && irqnr <= 1023))
>               return;
>
> -	/* Treat anything but SGIs in a uniform way */
> -	if (likely(irqnr > 15)) {
> -		int err;
> -
> -		if (static_branch_likely(&supports_deactivate_key))
> -			gic_write_eoir(irqnr);
> -		else
> -			isb();
> -
> -		err = handle_domain_irq(gic_data.domain, irqnr, regs);
> -		if (err) {
> -			WARN_ONCE(true, "Unexpected interrupt received!\n");
> -			gic_deactivate_unhandled(irqnr);
> -		}
> -		return;
> -	}
> -	if (irqnr < 16) {
> +	if (static_branch_likely(&supports_deactivate_key))
>               gic_write_eoir(irqnr);
> -		if (static_branch_likely(&supports_deactivate_key))
> -			gic_write_dir(irqnr);
> -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> -		/*
> -		 * Unlike GICv2, we don't need an smp_rmb() here.
> -		 * The control dependency from gic_read_iar to
> -		 * the ISB in gic_write_eoir is enough to ensure
> -		 * that any shared data read by handle_IPI will
> -		 * be read after the ACK.
> -		 */

Isn't that still relevant?

Also, while staring at this it dawned on me that IPI's don't need the
eoimode=0 isb(): due to how the IPI flow-handler is structured, we'll get a
gic_eoi_irq() just before calling into the irqaction. Dunno how much we
care about it.

> -		handle_IPI(irqnr, regs);
> -#else
> -		WARN_ONCE(true, "Unexpected SGI received!\n");
> -#endif
> +	else
> +		isb();
> +
> +	if (handle_domain_irq(gic_data.domain, irqnr, regs)) {
> +		WARN_ONCE(true, "Unexpected interrupt received!\n");
> +		gic_deactivate_unhandled(irqnr);
>       }
>  }
>

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel