Marc Zyngier wrote:
>
> On 06/10/11 09:18, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On 06/10/11 07:30, Kukjin Kim wrote:
> >> Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Changhwan,
> >>>
> >> Hi Marc,
> >>
> >> (Cc'ed Will Deacon and Russell King)
> >>
> >>> On 20/06/11 08:34, Changhwan Youn wrote:
> >>>> For full support of power modes, this patch adds implementation
> >>>> external GIC on EXYNOS4.
> >>>>
> >>>> External GIC of Exynos4 cannot support register banking so
> >>>> several interrupt related code for CPU1 should be different
> >>>> from that of CPU0.
> >>>
> >>> I just realized that patch has made it to mainline... Unfortunately,
it
> >>> seems quite broken to me:
> >>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Changhwan Youn <chaos.youn@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> arch/arm/mach-exynos4/cpu.c | 10 ++++++++
> >>>> arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/entry-macro.S | 5 ++++
> >>>> arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h | 1 +
> >>>> arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c | 27
> >>> +++++++++++++++++++++-
> >>>> 4 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/cpu.c
b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/cpu.c
> >>>> index fa33294..40a866c 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/cpu.c
> >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/cpu.c
> >>>> @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@
> >>>>
> >>>> #include <asm/proc-fns.h>
> >>>> #include <asm/hardware/cache-l2x0.h>
> >>>> +#include <asm/hardware/gic.h>
> >>>>
> >>>> #include <plat/cpu.h>
> >>>> #include <plat/clock.h>
> >>>> @@ -159,11 +160,20 @@ void __init exynos4_init_clocks(int xtal)
> >>>> exynos4_setup_clocks();
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> +static void exynos4_gic_irq_eoi(struct irq_data *d)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + struct gic_chip_data *gic_data =
irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + gic_data->cpu_base = S5P_VA_GIC_CPU +
> >>>> + (EXYNOS4_GIC_BANK_OFFSET *
> >>> smp_processor_id());
> >>>
> >>> Here, you're overwriting a field that is shared among *all* the
> >>> interrupts in the system. What if an interrupt comes up on another
CPU?
> >>> If you look at the implementation of gic_eoi_irq(), you'll definitely
> >>> see the race.
> >>>
> >> Hmm...as you can see in git log, the EXYNOS4210 cannot support register
> >> banking in GIC so this is needed.
> >
> > I don't dispute the need. I claim that the implementation is wrong, and
> > will fail given the right timings.
> >
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> void __init exynos4_init_irq(void)
> >>>> {
> >>>> int irq;
> >>>>
> >>>> gic_init(0, IRQ_LOCALTIMER, S5P_VA_GIC_DIST,
S5P_VA_GIC_CPU);
> >>>> + gic_arch_extn.irq_eoi = exynos4_gic_irq_eoi;
> >>>
> >>> And here you're abusing the GIC extension feature.
> >>>
> >> I think gic_arch_extn.irq_eoi can be overwritten in each architecture
to
> >> support own specific extensions like in the EXYNOS4 case.
> >
> > Sure. My point is you are diverting the GIC extension from its purpose,
> > which is mostly to be able to control wake-up sources (as for example in
> > the Tegra case). Here, you use this hooks to work around the fact that
> > the GIC driver is written with banking in mind, which is quite a
> > different thing.
> >
> >>> I've also had a look at -next, and this has been extended further to
> >>> support 4412. The problem with that is without banking, you're
painfully
> >>> working around the GIC driver. At that stage, I wonder if you wouldn't
> >>> be better off with a separate driver instead of abusing the existing
> >> one...
> >>>
> >> Well, in this case, you mean separate driver is better to us even
though
> >> there is a gic driver in arch/arm/common? I don't think so because
separate
> >> driver will probably have many duplicated codes and if common gic
driver can
> >> support every silicons which have different version's gic it's better
to us
> >> and should do.
> >
> > If you really insist on using the GIC common code, then I'd suggest to
> > adapt it to your needs instead of working around the problem.
> > What about making cpu_base a percpu field inside struct gic_chip_data?
> > No hook abuse, and no race conditions. You could also do that for
> > dist_base, as it looks to be required for the 4412.
>
> So to make my suggestion completely clear, here's a patch I'm now
> carrying in my tree. It's only been test compiled on EXYNOS4, but works
> nicely on my 11MP. It turns both dist_base and cpu_base into per-cpu
> variables, removes these callbacks, removes your private copy of
> gic_cpu_init, and makes struct gic_chip_data private again.
>
> What do you think?
Let me check this soon. Actually I need to sort this out to test on my board
with my git.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
