Hi Andre,
On 11/8/19 3:42 PM, Andre Przywara wrote:
> So far our IRQ handler routine checks that the received IRQ is actually
> the one SGI (IPI) that we are using for our testing.
>
> To make the IRQ testing routine more versatile, also allow the IRQ to be
> one test SPI (shared interrupt).
> We use the penultimate IRQ of the first SPI group for that purpose.
I don't get the above sentence. What do you mean by group here?
>
> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> arm/gic.c | 9 +++++++--
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arm/gic.c b/arm/gic.c
> index eca9188..c909668 100644
> --- a/arm/gic.c
> +++ b/arm/gic.c
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>
> #define IPI_SENDER 1
> #define IPI_IRQ 1
> +#define SPI_IRQ (GIC_FIRST_SPI + 30)
>
> struct gic {
> struct {
> @@ -162,8 +163,12 @@ static void irq_handler(struct pt_regs *regs __unused)
>
> smp_rmb(); /* pairs with wmb in stats_reset */
> ++acked[smp_processor_id()];
> - check_ipi_sender(irqstat);
> - check_irqnr(irqnr, IPI_IRQ);
> + if (irqnr < GIC_NR_PRIVATE_IRQS) {
> + check_ipi_sender(irqstat);
> + check_irqnr(irqnr, IPI_IRQ);
> + } else {
> + check_irqnr(irqnr, SPI_IRQ);
I think I would rather have different handlers per test.
I have rebased the ITS series and I use a different LPI handler there.
I think you shouldn't be obliged to hardcode a specific intid in the
handler.
Can't we have
static void setup_irq(handler_t handler)?
Thanks
Eric
> + }
> smp_wmb(); /* pairs with rmb in check_acked */
> }
>
>
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
