Hi Marc,
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 04:41:22PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > +#define IPI_IRQ 15
> > +
>
> It feels really bizarre that the function that maps the interrupt is
> specific to the interrupt controller, and yet the interrupt number is
> defined at the architecture level. I'd expect this to be just as
> interrupt controller specific.
>
Ok, move IPI_IRQ to irq-csky-mpintc.c. See my PATCH V8
> > + irq = arch_ipi_irq_mapping();
>
> How about checking the validity of the interrupt and that
> arch_ipi_irq_mapping is actually non-NULL?
Ok.
> > - rc = request_percpu_irq(IPI_IRQ, handle_ipi, "IPI Interrupt", &ipi_dummy_dev);
> > + rc = request_percpu_irq(irq, handle_ipi, "IPI Interrupt", &ipi_dummy_dev);
> > if (rc)
> > panic("%s IRQ request failed\n", __func__);
>
> To be honest, I'd tend to question the need for this level of
> abstraction, unless you actually plan for multiple SMP-capable
> interrupt controllers... But at the end of the day, that's your call,
> and the above code looks mostly correct.
Thx for the review. I will consider your suggestion.
Best Regards
GUo Ren
