[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPv3WKdZeCo-0xFC6EJcCeVQd7ef+SQz=MocR1nE5YdZAx3AJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 22:22:37 +0100
From: Marcin Wojtas <mw@...ihalf.com>
To: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Lior Amsalem <alior@...vell.com>, Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Tawfik Bayouk <tawfik@...vell.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nadav Haklai <nadavh@...vell.com>,
Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] irqchip: armada-370-xp: re-enable per-CPU interrupts
at resume time
Hi Thomas,
>
> @@ -550,16 +572,27 @@ static void armada_370_xp_mpic_resume(void)
> if (virq == 0)
> continue;
>
> - if (irq != ARMADA_370_XP_TIMER0_PER_CPU_IRQ)
> + data = irq_get_irq_data(virq);
> +
> + if (irq != ARMADA_370_XP_TIMER0_PER_CPU_IRQ) {
> + /* Non per-CPU interrupts */
> writel(irq, per_cpu_int_base +
For "Non per-CPU interrupts" per_cpu_int_base is used - is it
intentional? In armada_370_xp_irq_mask/unmask the condition looks
exactly opposite...
> ARMADA_370_XP_INT_CLEAR_MASK_OFFS);
> - else
> + if (!irqd_irq_disabled(data))
> + armada_370_xp_irq_unmask(data);
> + } else {
> + /* Per-CPU interrupts */
> writel(irq, main_int_base +
> ARMADA_370_XP_INT_SET_ENABLE_OFFS);
>
Best regards,
Marcin
--
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