A while ago, I wondered:
| It's my understanding GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE should reflect the actual number
| of CPU cores the interrupt is wired too. Is that correct?
|
| [Fixes for incorrect masks on shmobile]
|
| Should it be "GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(8)" on big.LITTLE configurations
| with four Cortex-A15 cores and four Cortex-A7 cores?
| Or should the interrupts be delivered to the four Cortex-A15 cores
| only by default?
|
| Note that incorrect masks for GIC PPI interrupts are not limited to
| shmobile. Presumably the interrupt specifiers got copied around a lot,
| cfr. the proliferation of "GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(4)" (and the older
| hardcoded "0xf0x" variant) in various dtsi files, not always limited to
| quad-core CPUs.
In the mean time, arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/juno.dts got added, which has 2 A57
cores and 4 A53 cores, and uses GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(6), so it seems like
my two RFC patches to use GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(8) for 4 A15 cores and 4
A7 cores are actually correct?
Thanks for your comments!
References:
1. Original RFC series:
[PATCH/RFC 0/4] ARM: shmobile: Correct masks for GIC PPI interrupts
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-November/306743.html
2. RFC patches:
a. [PATCH/RFC 3/4] ARM: shmobile: r8a7790: Correct mask for GIC
PPI interrupts
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-November/306741.html
b. [PATCH/RFC 4/4] ARM: shmobile: r8a73a4: Correct mask for GIC
PPI interrupts
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-November/306740.html
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
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
