On 01/10, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 07:17:29PM +0000, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > We can avoid the hacky cast of the per-cpu dev token by using the > > cpu_pmu pointer directly, but we'll still need to pass something to the > > percpu interrupt handler otherwise the genirq layer doesn't allow us to > > request the PPI. I can pass hw_events I guess. Is that what you're > > thinking? Or were you thinking that we could just use > > cpu_pmu->handle_irq as the handler argument in request_percpu_irq()? I > > can't figure out how that is supposed to work. > > Actually, I was thinking you could remove cpu_pmu_dispatch_irq completely > and just pass the actual handler straight through to request_percpu_irq. On > arm64 we pass the hw_events as the pcpu token, so I'd be inclined to do the > same here unless there's a good reason not to. > Passing the hw_events as the pcpu token here is kind of hacky. The reason is because the token is dereferenced into cpu_pmu in armv7pmu_handle_irq() like so: struct arm_pmu *cpu_pmu = (struct arm_pmu *)dev; It would be great if we could pass cpu_pmu directly to the request call like so: request_percpu_irq(irq, cpu_pmu->handle_irq, "arm-pmu", &cpu_pmu); but no. request_percpu_irq() wants a percpu pointer so this won't work. If cpu_pmu was declared as DEFINE_PER_CPU, this would work out just fine. Should the cpu_pmu become a per-cpu variable? That sounds rather invasive. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
