[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1264620749-24527-5-git-send-email-adharmap@codeaurora.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:32:28 -0800
From: adharmap@...eaurora.org
To: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>,
Kalle Valo <kalle.valo@....fi>, Jean Pihet <jpihet@...sta.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
Colin Tuckley <colin.tuckley@....com>,
Philby John <pjohn@...mvista.com>,
Srinidhi Kasagar <srinidhi.kasagar@...ricsson.com>,
Alessandro Rubini <rubini@...pv.it>,
Andrea Gallo <andrea.gallo@...ricsson.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <adharmap@...cinc.com>
Subject: [PATCH 4/5] gic: dont disable INT in ack callback
From: Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <adharmap@...cinc.com>
Unless gic_ack_irq is called from __do_IRQ, interrupt should not
be disabled in the ack function. Disabling the interrupt causes
handle_edge_irq to never enable it again.
Signed-off-by: Abhijeet Dharmapurikar <adharmap@...cinc.com>
---
arch/arm/common/gic.c | 29 +++++++++++++++++------------
1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/common/gic.c b/arch/arm/common/gic.c
index 709cf53..d47a1d7 100644
--- a/arch/arm/common/gic.c
+++ b/arch/arm/common/gic.c
@@ -67,25 +67,30 @@ static inline unsigned int gic_irq(unsigned int irq)
/*
* Routines to acknowledge, disable and enable interrupts
- *
- * Linux assumes that when we're done with an interrupt we need to
- * unmask it, in the same way we need to unmask an interrupt when
- * we first enable it.
- *
- * The GIC has a separate notion of "end of interrupt" to re-enable
- * an interrupt after handling, in order to support hardware
- * prioritisation.
- *
- * We can make the GIC behave in the way that Linux expects by making
- * our "acknowledge" routine disable the interrupt, then mark it as
- * complete.
*/
static void gic_ack_irq(unsigned int irq)
{
u32 mask = 1 << (irq % 32);
spin_lock(&irq_controller_lock);
+
+#ifndef CONFIG_GENERIC_HARDIRQS_NO__DO_IRQ
+
+ /*
+ * Linux assumes that when we're done with an interrupt we need to
+ * unmask it, in the same way we need to unmask an interrupt when
+ * we first enable it.
+ *
+ * The GIC has a separate notion of "end of interrupt" to re-enable
+ * an interrupt after handling, in order to support hardware
+ * prioritisation.
+ *
+ * We can make the GIC behave in the way that Linux expects by making
+ * our "acknowledge" routine disable the interrupt, then mark it as
+ * complete.
+ */
writel(mask, gic_dist_base(irq) + GIC_DIST_ENABLE_CLEAR + (gic_irq(irq) / 32) * 4);
+#endif
writel(gic_irq(irq), gic_cpu_base(irq) + GIC_CPU_EOI);
spin_unlock(&irq_controller_lock);
}
--
1.5.6.3
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists