On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 05:44:50PM +0800, Wan ZongShun wrote:
> 2016-07-15 15:00 GMT+08:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>:
> > On Friday, July 15, 2016 1:15:58 PM CEST Wan Zongshun wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually, I have two choice to implement this function:
> >>
> >> option1:
> >>
> >> void __exception_irq_entry aic_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
> >> {
> >> u32 hwirq;
> >>
> >> (void)readl(aic_base + REG_AIC_IPER);
> >> hwirq = readl(aic_base + REG_AIC_ISNR);
> >>
> >> handle_IRQ((irq_find_mapping(aic_domain, hwirq)), regs);
> >> }
> >
> > (side note: I think you want handle_domain_irq())
> >
> >> option2:
> >>
> >> void __exception_irq_entry aic_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
> >> {
> >> u32 hwirq;
> >>
> >> hwirq = readl(aic_base + REG_AIC_IPER);
> >> hwirq <<= 2;
> >>
> >> handle_IRQ((irq_find_mapping(aic_domain, hwirq)), regs);
> >> }
> >>
> >> Though the option2 do shift for hwirq, but it seems better than do io
> >> operation by readl,so I prefer to option2, agree?
> >
> > That will only return an irq number that is a multiple of four, which
> > seems wrong since the numbers are not that. Did you mean to write
> >
> > hwirq = ilog2(hwirq); ?
>
> Sorry, my fault, I mean hwirq >>= 2, bit[7:2] indicates which irq is triggering.
> so I have to do right shift 2 for IPER value.
Ok, this makes a lot more sense now. :)
> > That assumes that REG_AIC_IPER contains a 32-bit value with one single
> > bit set to indicate which IRQ was triggered.
> >
> > If the difference is only in performance, you could try measuring which
> > of the two ends up being faster.
>
> It seems hard to measure. I think Do IO operation should be slower
> than shift 2. :)
Agreed.
thx,
Jason.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
