Hi, Marc, On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 09:15:17AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >>>+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP > >>>+ set_send_ipi(&csky_mpintc_send_ipi); > >>>+ > >>>+ set_ipi_irq_mapping(&csky_mpintc_ipi_irq_mapping); > >> > >>Since you seem to be inventing a new set_send_ipi callback, why don't you > >>define it as: > >> > >>void set_send_ipi(void (*func)(const struct cpumask *), > >> unsigned int ipi_irq); > >>after having created the mapping for the IPI interrupt? It would avoid this > >>rather pointless mapping callback. > > > >I'll define it to: > > > >void set_send_ipi(void (*func)(const struct cpumask *)); > > > >IPI_IRQ only use software-irq-15 in mpintc driver, so arch needn't care > >about irq-num. > > Except that your SMP code does a request_irq on the result of > create_mapping. Who is going to do that if you don't pass the Linux irq > around? Yes, My SMP code does a request_irq on the result of create_mapping. Here is my smp.c code and it use a result of create_mapping by arch_ipi_irq_mapping() callback in irq-csky-mpintc.c void __init setup_smp_ipi(void) { int rc; ipi_irq = arch_ipi_irq_mapping(); if (ipi_irq == 0) panic("%s IRQ mapping failed\n", __func__); rc = request_percpu_irq(ipi_irq, handle_ipi, "IPI Interrupt", &ipi_dummy_dev); if (rc) panic("%s IRQ request failed\n", __func__); enable_smp_ipi(); } Best Regards Guo Ren