[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7f5206ea-ad18-86c2-f9f0-3fccaf4932e9@ti.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2019 14:29:43 +0530
From: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>
To: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@...ev.pl>
CC: Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/35] ARM: davinci: select GENERIC_IRQ_MULTI_HANDLER
On 07/02/19 9:19 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>>> +static asmlinkage void __exception_irq_entry
>>> +cp_intc_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>> +{
>>> + int irqnr = cp_intc_read(CP_INTC_PRIO_IDX);
>>> +
>>> + irqnr &= 0xff;
>>> +
>>> + handle_domain_irq(cp_intc_domain, irqnr, regs);
>>
>> This leaves out spurious interrupt handling present in existing assembly
>> code. Can you add it back. May be use omap_intc_handle_irq() as an
>> example for handling spurious IRQs.
>>
>
> Hi Sekhar,
>
> I started looking at this one and noticed that the manual says
> PRI_INDX field in the GPIR register is in bits 0-9 (mask 0x3ff) while
> the assembly logically ANDs it with 0xff. I guess it's because there
> can be no more interrupts than 255 but I'd at least explain it in a
> comment. Or should we use the proper mask? What do you think?
I think using mask 0x3ff to match TRM is fine.
Thanks,
Sekhar
Powered by blists - more mailing lists