On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 3:21 AM, Paul Walmsley <paul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Simplify the IRQ register/IRQ register bit calculations in
> mach-omap2/irq.c.
>
> Test-booted on 3430SDP.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paul Walmsley <paul@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> ---
>
> size:
> text data bss dec hex filename
> 3341347 170992 109008 3621347 3741e3 vmlinux.3430sdp
> 3341315 170992 109008 3621315 3741c3 vmlinux.3430sdp.patched
>
> ---
>
> arch/arm/mach-omap2/irq.c | 17 +++++++----------
> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/irq.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/irq.c
> index ac062ee..f610825 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/irq.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/irq.c
> @@ -27,6 +27,9 @@
> #define INTC_MIR_CLEAR0 0x0088
> #define INTC_MIR_SET0 0x008c
>
> +/* Number of IRQ state bits in each MIR register */
> +#define IRQ_BITS_PER_REG 32
> +
> /*
> * OMAP2 has a number of different interrupt controllers, each interrupt
> * controller is identified as its own "bank". Register definitions are
> @@ -67,24 +70,18 @@ static void omap_ack_irq(unsigned int irq)
>
> static void omap_mask_irq(unsigned int irq)
> {
> - int offset = (irq >> 5) << 5;
> + int offset = irq & (~(IRQ_BITS_PER_REG - 1));
>
> - if (irq >= 64)
> - irq %= 64;
> - else if (irq >= 32)
> - irq %= 32;
> + irq %= IRQ_BITS_PER_REG;
Is it the right conversion?
If the irq is greater then 32 and less then or equal to 64 it's
result is different.
E.g, If irq is 63 then original irq is 63, but new code is 31
And if this code is right, how about to use mask instead of modulo op?
irq &= (IRQ_BITS_PER_REG - 1);
Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
