On Wed, 25 May 2022 13:10:22 +0100,
Dragan Mladjenovic <Dragan.Mladjenovic@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Paul Burton <paulburton@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Introduce support for multi-cluster GIC register access in
> __gic_with_next_online_cpu(), and therefore in its user
> gic_with_each_online_cpu(). We access registers in remote clusters using
> the CM's GCR_CL_REDIRECT register, and so here we delegate to
> mips_cm_lock_other() in order to configure this access.
>
> With this done, users of gic_with_each_online_cpu() gain support for
> multi-cluster with no further changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Burton <paulburton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Chao-ying Fu <cfu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Dragan Mladjenovic <dragan.mladjenovic@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-mips-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-mips-gic.c
> index 4872bebe24cf..89a3c6d04e09 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-mips-gic.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-mips-gic.c
> @@ -69,6 +69,20 @@ static int __gic_with_next_online_cpu(int prev)
> {
> unsigned int cpu;
>
> + /*
> + * Unlock access to the previous CPU's GIC local register block.
> + *
> + * Delegate to the CM locking code in the multi-cluster case, since
> + * other clusters can only be accessed using GCR_CL_REDIRECT.
> + *
> + * In the single cluster case we don't need to do anything; the caller
> + * is responsible for maintaining gic_lock & nothing should be
> + * expecting any particular value of GIC_VL_OTHER so we can leave it
> + * as-is.
> + */
> + if ((prev != -1) && mips_cps_multicluster_cpus())
> + mips_cm_unlock_other();
Huh. It now strikes me that if you exit the gic_with_next_online_cpu()
early (with a 'break;', for example), the state machine breaks as you
won't have performed the unlock...
This definitely needs some documenting, at the very least.
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
