Re: [PATCH 08/57] microblaze_v7: Interrupt handling, timer support,selfmod code

[Michal Simek]

Thomas,
> Michal,
> 
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Michal Simek wrote:
>>> I guess the problem is in your chip->xxx functions.
>> I fixed it. There were one additional line.
>> + I set GENERIC_HARDIRQS_NO__DO_IRQ=y.
> 
> Cool.

:-)

NO_HZ works too. Here is the log.

# cat /proc/interrupts
                CPU0
  3:       3827     level     INTC  timer
  8:       1834      edge     INTC  uartlite
# uptime
 00:16:47 up 16 min, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
# uptime
 00:17:53 up 17 min, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
# cat /proc/interrupts
                CPU0
  3:       4105     level     INTC  timer
  8:       1913      edge     INTC  uartlite
# uptime
 00:21:44 up 21 min, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
# cat /proc/interrupts
                CPU0
  3:       4615     level     INTC  timer
  8:       1970      edge     INTC  uartlite
#

> 
>> BTW: Below is full chip description where function enable is unmask
>> and disable is mask. Do I have keep there enable and disable function pointers?
>> I commented them and works without them too.
> 
> Right. The generic code does:
> 
>         if (!chip->enable)
>                 chip->enable = default_enable;
>         if (!chip->disable)
>                 chip->disable = default_disable;

I look at default implementation and seems to me that I can save some
instruction when I use my enable function not generic one and for disabling is
default function faster because do nothing.
I am going to send one email with full intc.c + 2 changes - one in irq.c and
second in Kconfig.

Thanks,
Michal

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 	tglx


-- 
Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng)
w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/