Hi David,
Thanks a bunch for clarifying this. Just to complete, I have some code
which calls CHECK_IRQ_PER_CPU(desc->status) after every time a
descriptor is created for an irq. And based on it we create either per
cpu data structures or single data structure for that particular irq.
After your clarification, I can safely create exception for
OCTEON_IRQ_MBOX0 and OCTEON_IRQ_MBOX1 as you mention that missing the
flag is just cosmetic.
Thanks again
Saurabh
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 12:08 AM, David Daney <david.daney@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 09/05/2011 03:23 AM, SAURABH MALPANI wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> <Re sending this because last time I am afraid I didn't hit the
>> correct mail filters.>
>>
>> Query:
>>
>> mailbox_interrupt is not registered with IRQF_PERCPU but it is
>> supposed to be percpu interrupt. Is that on purpose or a miss?
>
> On Octeon the per-cpuness of a particular irq is a property of the irq
> itself rather than being controlled by IRQF_PERCPU. So other than being
> perhaps stylistically in poor taste, no harm is done by omitting IRQF_PERCPU
> here.
>
>> I am
>> porting some code from x86 to octeon which requires special handling
>> for per cpu interrupts.
>>
>> void octeon_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus)
>> {
>> cvmx_write_csr(CVMX_CIU_MBOX_CLRX(cvmx_get_core_num()),
>> 0xffffffff);
>> if (request_irq(OCTEON_IRQ_MBOX0, mailbox_interrupt,
>> IRQF_DISABLED,
>> "mailbox0", mailbox_interrupt)) {
>> panic("Cannot request_irq(OCTEON_IRQ_MBOX0)\n");
>> }
>> if (request_irq(OCTEON_IRQ_MBOX1, mailbox_interrupt,
>> IRQF_DISABLED,
>> "mailbox1", mailbox_interrupt)) {
>> panic("Cannot request_irq(OCTEON_IRQ_MBOX1)\n");
>> }
>> }
>>
>> --
>> Saurabh
>>
>>
>
>
--
Saurabh
