Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 03/16] arm/arm64: gic: Introduce setup_irq() helper

[Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 03:53:59PM +0100, Eric Auger wrote:
> ipi_enable() code would be reusable for other interrupts
> than IPI. Let's rename it setup_irq() and pass an interrupt
> handler pointer. We also export it to use it in other tests
> such as the PMU's one.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>
> ---
>  arm/gic.c         | 24 +++---------------------
>  lib/arm/asm/gic.h |  3 +++
>  lib/arm/gic.c     | 11 +++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arm/gic.c b/arm/gic.c
> index fcf4c1f..ba43ae5 100644
> --- a/arm/gic.c
> +++ b/arm/gic.c
> @@ -215,20 +215,9 @@ static void ipi_test_smp(void)
>  	report_prefix_pop();
>  }
>  
> -static void ipi_enable(void)
> -{
> -	gic_enable_defaults();
> -#ifdef __arm__
> -	install_exception_handler(EXCPTN_IRQ, ipi_handler);
> -#else
> -	install_irq_handler(EL1H_IRQ, ipi_handler);
> -#endif
> -	local_irq_enable();
> -}
> -
>  static void ipi_send(void)
>  {
> -	ipi_enable();
> +	setup_irq(ipi_handler);
>  	wait_on_ready();
>  	ipi_test_self();
>  	ipi_test_smp();
> @@ -238,7 +227,7 @@ static void ipi_send(void)
>  
>  static void ipi_recv(void)
>  {
> -	ipi_enable();
> +	setup_irq(ipi_handler);
>  	cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &ready);
>  	while (1)
>  		wfi();
> @@ -295,14 +284,7 @@ static void ipi_clear_active_handler(struct pt_regs *regs __unused)
>  static void run_active_clear_test(void)
>  {
>  	report_prefix_push("active");
> -	gic_enable_defaults();
> -#ifdef __arm__
> -	install_exception_handler(EXCPTN_IRQ, ipi_clear_active_handler);
> -#else
> -	install_irq_handler(EL1H_IRQ, ipi_clear_active_handler);
> -#endif
> -	local_irq_enable();
> -
> +	setup_irq(ipi_clear_active_handler);
>  	ipi_test_self();
>  	report_prefix_pop();
>  }
> diff --git a/lib/arm/asm/gic.h b/lib/arm/asm/gic.h
> index 21cdb58..55dd84b 100644
> --- a/lib/arm/asm/gic.h
> +++ b/lib/arm/asm/gic.h
> @@ -82,5 +82,8 @@ void gic_set_irq_target(int irq, int cpu);
>  void gic_set_irq_group(int irq, int group);
>  int gic_get_irq_group(int irq);
>  
> +typedef void (*handler_t)(struct pt_regs *regs __unused);
> +extern void setup_irq(handler_t handler);
> +
>  #endif /* !__ASSEMBLY__ */
>  #endif /* _ASMARM_GIC_H_ */
> diff --git a/lib/arm/gic.c b/lib/arm/gic.c
> index aa9cb86..8416dde 100644
> --- a/lib/arm/gic.c
> +++ b/lib/arm/gic.c
> @@ -236,3 +236,14 @@ int gic_get_irq_group(int irq)
>  {
>  	return gic_masked_irq_bits(irq, GICD_IGROUPR, 1, 0, ACCESS_READ);
>  }
> +
> +void setup_irq(handler_t handler)
> +{
> +	gic_enable_defaults();
> +#ifdef __arm__
> +	install_exception_handler(EXCPTN_IRQ, handler);
> +#else
> +	install_irq_handler(EL1H_IRQ, handler);
> +#endif
> +	local_irq_enable();
> +}
> -- 
> 2.20.1
>

I'd rather not add this function to the common code, at least not without
calling it something with 'defaults' in the name. Also I'd prefer unit
tests to call local_irq_enable()/disable() themselves. I think it's fine
to implement this in arm/gic.c and duplicate it in arm/pmu.c, if needed.

Thanks,
drew

_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm