On 25/07/18 12:24, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 12:18:39PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> This feels odd. It means that you cannot have the following sequence: >> >> local_irq_disable(); >> enable_irq(x); // where x is owned by a remote hart >> >> as smp_call_function_single() requires interrupts to be enabled. >> >> More fundamentally, why are you trying to make these interrupts look >> global while they aren't? arm/arm64 have similar restrictions with GICv2 >> and earlier, and treats these interrupts as per-cpu. >> >> Given that the drivers that deal with drivers connected to the per-hart >> irqchip are themselves likely to be aware of the per-cpu aspect, it >> would make sense to align things (we've been through that same >> discussion about the clocksource driver a few weeks back). > > Right now the only direct consumers are said clocksource, the PLIC > driver later in this series and the RISC-V arch IPI code. None of them > is going to do a manual enable_irq, so I guess the remote case of the > code is simply dead code. I'll take a look at converting them to > per-cpu. I guess the GICv2 driver is the best template? I think you can do a much better job than the GICv2 driver ;-). You have the chance of a clean slate, and no legacy (or ACPI) junk to deal with! I think this is just a matter of moving the HLIC declaration in DT to be outside of the cpu nodes (you just have a single HLIC node that is valid for all the CPUs in the system), and making the interrupts percpu_devid in your mapping function (see gic_irq_domain_map for reference). Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... -- 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
