[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFiDJ58oEfFN5CgLZxqTLSiGfuxNH2t3OFAaSUWLJ_P_B_QRBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 14:33:54 +0800
From: Ley Foon Tan <lftan@...era.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
Chung-Lin Tang <cltang@...esourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/29] nios2: Interrupt handling
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
>> +#ifndef _ASM_NIOS2_IRQ_H
>> +#define _ASM_NIOS2_IRQ_H
>> +
>> +#define NIOS2_CPU_NR_IRQS 32
>> +/* Reserve 32 additional interrupts for GPIO IRQs */
>> +#define NR_IRQS (NIOS2_CPU_NR_IRQS + 32)
>
> Please use sparse irqs. Hardcoded limits tend to work out really bad.
Yes, will change this.
>
>> +#include <linux/init.h>
>> +#include <linux/interrupt.h>
>> +#include <linux/of.h>
>> +
>> +static void chip_unmask(struct irq_data *d)
>> +{
>> + u32 ien;
>> + ien = RDCTL(CTL_IENABLE);
>> + ien |= (1 << d->hwirq);
>> + WRCTL(CTL_IENABLE, ien);
>
> So this is UP only, right?
Yes, this is to enable one interrupt.
>
> Also why don't you cache the register content so spare the extra read
> from the hardware?
Need to make sure nobody modify the register if we cache the register content.
Will keep as it is.
Thanks.
Regards
Ley Foon
--
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