On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2014, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 5:51 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 15 Jul 2014, Ley Foon Tan wrote:
>> >> +static void chip_unmask(struct irq_data *d)
>> >> +{
>> >> + u32 ien;
>> >> + ien = RDCTL(CTL_IENABLE);
>> >> + ien |= (1 << d->hwirq);
>> >> + WRCTL(CTL_IENABLE, ien);
>> >
>> > So this is UP only, right?
>> Yes, this is to enable one interrupt.
>
> The question was, whether this is always a UniProcessor machine.
Yes, it is UP.
>
>> > Also why don't you cache the register content so spare the extra read
>> > from the hardware?
>> Need to make sure nobody modify the register if we cache the register content.
>> Will keep as it is.
>
> Sigh.
>
> If this is a uniprocessor only design, then nothing can modify the
> cached values as all these functions are always called with interrupts
> disabled.
>
> If this should be SMP safe, then you'd need serialization of the
> register access as well becasue the read/modify/write sequence is not
> atomic.
Okay, we can cache the value.
Thanks.
Regards
Ley Foon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
