From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: shc_work@mail.ru (=?UTF-8?B?QWxleGFuZGVyIFNoaXlhbg==?=)
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 00:39:13 +0400
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFtQQVRDSCB2MiBSRVNFTkQgMS8zXSBBUk06IGNscHM3MTF4OiBBZGQg?=
 =?UTF-8?B?Q0xQUzcxMVggaXJxY2hpcCBkcml2ZXI=?=
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1403041957320.18573@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <1391328466-30873-1-git-send-email-shc_work@mail.ru>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1403041957320.18573@ionos.tec.linutronix.de>
Message-ID: <1393965553.856224948@f346.i.mail.ru>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

???????,  4 ????? 2014, 21:15 +01:00 ?? Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>:
> On Sun, 2 Feb 2014, Alexander Shiyan wrote:
> 
> > +static const struct {
> > +#define CLPS711X_FLAG_EN	(1 << 0)
> > +#define CLPS711X_FLAG_FIQ	(1 << 1)
> > +	unsigned int	flags;
> > +	phys_addr_t	eoi;
> > +} clps711x_irqs[] = {
> > +	[1]	= { CLPS711X_FLAG_FIQ, CLPS711X_BLEOI, },
> > +	[3]	= { CLPS711X_FLAG_FIQ, CLPS711X_MCEOI, },
> > +	[4]	= { CLPS711X_FLAG_EN, CLPS711X_COEOI, },
> > +	[5]	= { CLPS711X_FLAG_EN, },
> > +	[6]	= { CLPS711X_FLAG_EN, },
> > +	[7]	= { CLPS711X_FLAG_EN, },
> > +	[8]	= { CLPS711X_FLAG_EN, CLPS711X_TC1EOI, },
> > +	[9]	= { CLPS711X_FLAG_EN, CLPS711X_TC2EOI, },
> > +	[10]	= { CLPS711X_FLAG_EN, CLPS711X_RTCEOI, },
> > +	[11]	= { CLPS711X_FLAG_EN, CLPS711X_TEOI, },
> > +	[12]	= { CLPS711X_FLAG_EN, },
> > +	[13]	= { CLPS711X_FLAG_EN, },
> > +	[14]	= { CLPS711X_FLAG_EN, CLPS711X_UMSEOI, },
> > +	[15]	= { CLPS711X_FLAG_EN, CLPS711X_SRXEOF, },
> > +	[16]	= { CLPS711X_FLAG_EN, CLPS711X_KBDEOI, },
> > +	[17]	= { CLPS711X_FLAG_EN, },
> > +	[18]	= { CLPS711X_FLAG_EN, },
> > +	[28]	= { CLPS711X_FLAG_EN, },
> > +	[29]	= { CLPS711X_FLAG_EN, },
> > +	[32]	= { CLPS711X_FLAG_FIQ, },
> 
> Is anything really using the FIQs on those clps711x machines?
> 
> If yes, I have no objections to export the no_action handler.

Yes, the patch ("no_action") is the result of the question raised by the
driver that uses FIQ.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.alsa.devel/119730/focus=119842

> > +static void clps711x_intc_mask(struct irq_data *d)
> > +{
> > +	irq_hw_number_t hwirq = irqd_to_hwirq(d);
> > +	void __iomem *intmr = clps711x_intc->intmr[hwirq / 16];
> > +	u32 tmp;
> > +
> > +	tmp = readl_relaxed(intmr);
> > +	tmp &= ~(1 << (hwirq % 16));
> > +	writel_relaxed(tmp, intmr);
> 
> Why can't you use a generic irq chip for all of this ?

I thought many times on this subject, but I can not imagine how to
handle EOI, because each EOI interrupt uses a separate register.

Thanks.
---