[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130114153612.GF7990@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 15:36:12 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"nico@...aro.org" <nico@...aro.org>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
"john.stultz@...aro.org" <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/4] clockevents: Add generic timer broadcast receiver
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 02:17:26PM +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:50:55AM +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Mon, 14 Jan 2013, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:06:31AM +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 9 Jan 2013, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS_BROADCAST
> > > > > > +extern int tick_receive_broadcast(void);
> > > > > > +#else
> > > > > > +static inline int tick_receive_broadcast(void)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > > +}
> > > > >
> > > > > What's the inline function for? If an arch does not have broadcasting
> > > > > support it should not have a receive broadcast function call either.
> > > >
> > > > That was how this was originally structured [1], but Santosh suggested this
> > > > would break the build for !GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS_BROADCAST [1]. It means that the
> > > > arch-specific receive path (i.e. IPI handler) doesn't have to be #ifdef'd,
> > > > which makes it less ugly.
> > >
> > > Hmm. If you want to keep the IPI around unconditionally the inline
> > > makes some sense, though the question is whether keeping an unused IPI
> > > around makes sense in the first place. I'd rather see a warning that
> > > an unexpected IPI happened than a silent inline function being called.
> >
> > How about I add a warning (e.g. "Impossible timer broadcast received.") and
> > return -EOPNOTSUPP when !GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS_BROADCAST?
>
> You still need to do something with the return value in the arch IPI
> code, right?
Good point. Having the stub when !CONFIG_GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS_BROADCAST is
clearly problematic.
I'll go with your original suggestion, removing the tick_receive_broadcast stub
for !CONFIG_GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS_BROADCAST and I'll #idef the IPI_TIMER handler.
That way it'll fall down to the standard warning for an unexpected/unknown IPI
for arch/arm at least.
> > > > > Is anything going to use the return value?
> > > >
> > > > I'd added this after looking at the x86 lapic timers, where interrupts might
> > > > remain pending over a kexec, and lapic interrupts come up before timers are
> > > > registered. The return value is useful for shutting down the timer in that case
> > > > (see x86's local_apic_timer_interrupt).
> > >
> > > Right, though then you need to check for evt->event_handler as well.
> >
> > I thought this previously also [1], but I couldn't find any path such that a
> > tick_cpu_device would have an evtdev without an event_handler. We always set the
> > handler before setting evtdev, and alway wipe evtdev before wiping the handler.
> >
> > Have I missed something?
>
> That's an x86 specific issue. Though we could try and make that
> functionality completely generic.
Just to check: is the evt->event_handler check necessary?
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
Thanks,
Mark.
--
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