On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2014, Andrew Bresticker wrote:
>> static void gic_mask_irq(struct irq_data *d)
>> {
>> - GIC_CLR_INTR_MASK(d->irq - gic_irq_base);
>> + unsigned int irq = d->irq - gic_irq_base;
>> +
>> + if (gic_is_local_irq(irq)) {
>> + GICWRITE(GIC_REG(VPE_LOCAL, GIC_VPE_RMASK),
>> + 1 << GIC_INTR_BIT(gic_hw_to_local_irq(irq)));
>> + } else {
>> + GIC_CLR_INTR_MASK(irq);
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> static void gic_unmask_irq(struct irq_data *d)
>> {
>> - GIC_SET_INTR_MASK(d->irq - gic_irq_base);
>> + unsigned int irq = d->irq - gic_irq_base;
>> +
>> + if (gic_is_local_irq(irq)) {
>> + GICWRITE(GIC_REG(VPE_LOCAL, GIC_VPE_SMASK),
>> + 1 << GIC_INTR_BIT(gic_hw_to_local_irq(irq)));
>> + } else {
>> + GIC_SET_INTR_MASK(irq);
>> + }
>
> Why are you adding a conditional in all these functions instead of
> having two interrupt chips with separate callbacks and irqdata?
Ok, I'll use a separate irqchip.
> And looking at GIC_SET_INTR_MASK(irq) makes me shudder even more. The
> whole thing can be replaced with the generic interrupt chip functions.
>
> If you set it up proper, then there is not a single conditional or
> runtime calculation of bitmasks, address offsets etc.
Yes, I'd like to use the generic irqchip library here, but Malta and
SEAD-3 will need to be converted over to using irq domains. Perhaps
I'll do that first - it should get rid of a lot of the other ugliness
here as well.
