[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201222191433.3dgnfwyrod4tnvaf@hatter.bewilderbeest.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 13:14:33 -0600
From: Zev Weiss <zev@...ilderbeest.net>
To: Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>
Cc: Eddie James <eajames@...ux.ibm.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
OpenBMC Maillist <openbmc@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-aspeed <linux-aspeed@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jae Hyun Yoo <jae.hyun.yoo@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] aspeed-video: clear spurious interrupt bits
unconditionally
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 10:47:37PM CST, Joel Stanley wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 at 02:46, Zev Weiss <zev@...ilderbeest.net> wrote:
>>
>> Instead of testing and conditionally clearing them one by one, we can
>> instead just unconditionally clear them all at once.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zev Weiss <zev@...ilderbeest.net>
>
>I had a poke at the assembly and it looks like GCC is clearing the
>bits unconditionally anyway, so removing the tests provides no change.
>
>Combining them is a good further optimization.
>
>Reviewed-by: Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>
>
>A question unrelated to this patch: Do you know why the driver doesn't
>clear the status bits in the interrupt handler? I would expect it to
>write the value of sts back to the register to ack the pending
>interrupt.
>
No, I don't, and I was sort of wondering the same thing actually -- I'm
not deeply familiar with this hardware or driver though, so I was a bit
hesitant to start messing with things. (Though maybe doing so would
address the "stickiness" aspect when it does manifest.) Perhaps Eddie
or Jae can shed some light here?
Zev
Powered by blists - more mailing lists