[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b0673d7e-9a1e-7dcb-5322-c05fe0821349@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2018 11:17:45 +0100
From: Julien Thierry <julien.thierry@....com>
To: Suzuki K Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, daniel.thompson@...aro.org,
joel@...lfernandes.org, marc.zyngier@....com, mark.rutland@....com,
christoffer.dall@....com, james.morse@....com,
catalin.marinas@....com, will.deacon@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/26] arm64: cpufeature: Add cpufeature for IRQ
priority masking
On 25/05/18 11:04, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 25/05/18 10:49, Julien Thierry wrote:
>> Add a cpufeature indicating whether a cpu supports masking interrupts
>> by priority.
>
> How is this different from the SYSREG_GIC_CPUIF cap ? Is it just
> the description ?
More or less.
It is just to have an easier condition in the rest of the series.
Basically the PRIO masking feature is enabled if we have a GICv3 CPUIF
working *and* the option was selected at build time. Before this meant
that I was checking for the GIC_CPUIF cap inside #ifdefs (and putting
alternatives depending on that inside #ifdefs as well).
Having this as a separate feature feels easier to manage in the code. It
also makes it clearer at boot time that the kernel will be using irq
priorities (although I admit it was not the initial intention):
[ 0.000000] CPU features: detected: IRQ priority masking
But yes that new feature will be detected only if SYSREG_GIC_CPUIF gets
detected as well.
Cheers,
--
Julien Thierry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists