From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-clk-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from pmta2.delivery5.ore.mailhop.org ([54.186.218.12]:48869 "EHLO
	pmta2.delivery5.ore.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751191AbcGOPpz (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 15 Jul 2016 11:45:55 -0400
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2016 15:45:51 +0000
From: Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>
To: Wan ZongShun <mcuos.com@gmail.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Wan Zongshun <vw@iommu.org>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>, p.zabel@pengutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/10] irqchip: add irqchip driver for nuc900
Message-ID: <20160715154551.GF31509@io.lakedaemon.net>
References: <1468135649-19980-1-git-send-email-vw@iommu.org>
 <20160714135426.GC31509@io.lakedaemon.net>
 <5788718E.7080708@iommu.org>
 <16178876.fFBuoBSjbd@wuerfel>
 <CAKT61h8EkOOkDHou65Uc7NNomJ6Nowvw8o6JnWxNyc0S_=x_JA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <CAKT61h8EkOOkDHou65Uc7NNomJ6Nowvw8o6JnWxNyc0S_=x_JA@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-clk-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-clk.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 05:44:50PM +0800, Wan ZongShun wrote:
> 2016-07-15 15:00 GMT+08:00 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>:
> > On Friday, July 15, 2016 1:15:58 PM CEST Wan Zongshun wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually, I have two choice to implement this function:
> >>
> >> option1:
> >>
> >> void __exception_irq_entry aic_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
> >> {
> >>         u32 hwirq;
> >>
> >>         (void)readl(aic_base + REG_AIC_IPER);
> >>         hwirq = readl(aic_base + REG_AIC_ISNR);
> >>
> >>         handle_IRQ((irq_find_mapping(aic_domain, hwirq)), regs);
> >> }
> >
> > (side note: I think you want handle_domain_irq())
> >
> >> option2:
> >>
> >> void __exception_irq_entry aic_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
> >> {
> >>         u32 hwirq;
> >>
> >>         hwirq = readl(aic_base + REG_AIC_IPER);
> >>         hwirq <<= 2;
> >>
> >>         handle_IRQ((irq_find_mapping(aic_domain, hwirq)), regs);
> >> }
> >>
> >> Though the option2 do shift for hwirq, but it seems better than do io
> >> operation by readl,so I prefer to option2, agree?
> >
> > That will only return an irq number that is a multiple of four, which
> > seems wrong since the numbers are not that. Did you mean to write
> >
> >         hwirq = ilog2(hwirq);   ?
> 
> Sorry, my fault, I mean hwirq >>= 2, bit[7:2] indicates which irq is triggering.
> so I have to do right shift 2 for IPER value.

Ok, this makes a lot more sense now. :)

> > That assumes that REG_AIC_IPER contains a 32-bit value with one single
> > bit set to indicate which IRQ was triggered.
> >
> > If the difference is only in performance, you could try measuring which
> > of the two ends up being faster.
> 
> It seems hard to measure. I think Do IO operation should be slower
> than shift 2. :)

Agreed.

thx,

Jason.