[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <565C3A14.10401@imgtec.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:59:16 +0000
From: Qais Yousef <qais.yousef@...tec.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <jason@...edaemon.net>,
<marc.zyngier@....com>, <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
<ralf@...ux-mips.org>, <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/19] genirq: Add a new function to get IPI reverse
mapping
On 11/30/2015 11:22 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Nov 2015, Qais Yousef wrote:
>> On 11/30/2015 10:40 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2015, Qais Yousef wrote:
>>>> While trying to get my remoteproc driver work with this I uncovered a
>>>> problem
>>>> with this approach.
>>>>
>>>> mips-gic doesn't store the actual hwirq in the irq_data. It uses
>>>> GIC_SHARED_TO_HWIRQ() and GIC_HWIRQ_TO_SHARED() to add and remove an
>>>> offset.
>>> Why can't MIPS store the real hwirq number in irq_data?
>>
>> I'm wary of ending up in inconsistency hell where some functions need to deal
>> with raw hwirq and others with translated ones.
>>
>> I will give this a go first and see if it gets really ugly.
> Well, the question is why can't those functions not all use the raw
> hardware irq. We have it in irq_data exactly to avoid calculations in
> the hot path functions.
>
I'll see what I can do as part of this series. I think I can fix the new
IPI and device domains, but can't promise about the root gic domain. It
might be too big of a change for this series.
Thanks,
Qais
--
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