[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6613c15b-7951-12b3-cbfd-2961046de2b7@quicinc.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2023 14:49:06 +0530
From: "Maulik Shah (mkshah)" <quic_mkshah@...cinc.com>
To: <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>, Andy Gross <agross@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] irqchip/qcom-pdc: add support for v3.2 HW
Hi Neil,
On 8/23/2023 2:21 PM, neil.armstrong@...aro.org wrote:
> On 23/08/2023 10:25, Maulik Shah (mkshah) wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 8/23/2023 1:16 PM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 23/08/2023 07:35, Maulik Shah (mkshah) wrote:
>>>> Hi Neil,
>>>>
>>>> @@ -142,8 +163,17 @@ static int qcom_pdc_gic_set_type(struct
>>>> irq_data *d, unsigned int type)
>>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>>> }
>>>>> - old_pdc_type = pdc_reg_read(IRQ_i_CFG, d->hwirq);
>>>>> - pdc_reg_write(IRQ_i_CFG, d->hwirq, pdc_type);
>>>>> + if (pdc_version < PDC_VERSION_3_2) {
>>>>> + old_pdc_type = pdc_reg_read(IRQ_i_CFG, d->hwirq);
>>>>> + pdc_reg_write(IRQ_i_CFG, d->hwirq, pdc_type);
>>>>> + } else {
>>>>> + u32 val;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + val = pdc_reg_read(IRQ_i_CFG, d->hwirq);
>>>>> + old_pdc_type = val & IRQ_i_CFG_TYPE_MASK;
>>>>> + pdc_reg_write(IRQ_i_CFG, d->hwirq,
>>>>> + pdc_type | (val & IRQ_i_CFG_IRQ_ENABLE));
>>>>> + }
>>>> While above is correct, i don't think we need version check in
>>>> qcom_pdc_gic_set_type() as bits 0-2 are always for the type in
>>>> old/new version as mentioned in v1.
>>>>
>>>> Adding one line after reading old_pdc_type should be good enough.
>>>
>>> Yes I understood, but while looking at the IRQ_i_CFG bits, I wanted
>>> to keep the original
>>> driver behavior intact by setting remaining bits to 0.
>>>
>>> Adding this single line changes that behavior and keeps bits 3-31
>>> to the default register value, which may have some consequences.
>>>
>>> If you consider it's an ok change, then I'll reduce it to this
>>> single line.
>> Yes this ok change to have single line and should not have any
>> consequences.
>
> I also remember why, it's about the final check:
>
> 184 if (old_pdc_type != pdc_type)
> 185 irq_chip_set_parent_state(d,
> IRQCHIP_STATE_PENDING, false);
>
> We need to strip out remaining bits of old_pdc_type of this won't work as
> expected, so I'll change it to :
>
> + old_pdc_type = pdc_reg_read(IRQ_i_CFG, d->hwirq);
> + pdc_type |= (old_pdc_type & ~IRQ_i_CFG_TYPE_MASK);
> + old_pdc_type &= IRQ_i_CFG_TYPE_MASK;
> + pdc_reg_write(IRQ_i_CFG, d->hwirq, pdc_type);
>
> Is it ok for you ?
No.
old_pdc_type = pdc_reg_read(IRQ_i_CFG, d->hwirq);
+ pdc_type |= (old_pdc_type & ~IRQ_i_CFG_TYPE_MASK);
Adding above suggested single line is sufficient to make final check
properly compare both old_pdc_type and new pdc_type, right?
But with your above change, It will end up comparing only bits 0-2 of
old_pdc_type with updated pdc_type (which just got the other bits (3 to
31) of IRQ_i_CFG register by the ORing it with old_pdc_type).
Thanks,
Maulik
Powered by blists - more mailing lists