Re: [PATCH 03/12] irqchip: gic: define register_routable_domain_ops conditional
From: Stefan Agner
Date: Thu Dec 04 2014 - 08:48:36 EST
On 2014-12-04 14:42, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 04/12/14 13:35, Stefan Agner wrote:
>> On 2014-12-03 20:04, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> What do you mean by the shared state in the drawing above? Currently, I
>>>> check whether a interrupt is already used by the other core by reading
>>>> the register (do this configuration register reflect the "shared state"
>>>> in your drawing?).
>>> I think that is basically it. It should only be the register that
>>> decides on the actual routing. BTW, how do you arbitrate between
>>> concurrent accesses to this register? Or is only the A5 allowed to
>>> change it?
>> No arbitration so far... The whole Vybrid on M4 stuff is quite a hack
>> right now. For instance also the concurrent access to the clock
>> registers is not handled. Currently, I start the M4 from a booted A5
>> Linux. To avoid half of the clocks get turned of by the M4 clock driver,
>> I need to specify clk_ignore_unused. Beside that, peripherals have to be
>> enabled/disabled in a non conflicting manor in the device trees...
>> For the interrupt router in MSCM, it would be nice if the access could
>> be done an atomic way, which would avoid the use of a lock mechanism.
>> But I guess this is not possible, since peripherals only support
>> standard ldr/str...?
>> There is the SEMA4 module which provides hardware semaphores. I'm aware
>> of the hardware spinlock drivers (drivers/hwspinlock/), I started to
>> implement such a driver for Vybrid. But so far a grep through the kernel
>> does not show one usage of that framework... I guess we could add dt
>> support for that, so we can assign the locks to individual drivers.
>> I also plan to have a deeper look into remoteproc/rpmsg, not sure if
>> locking of shared peripherals is part (or planned to be part) of that
>> For the clock stuff, the problem is more complex: I guess the would need
>> some kind of master/slave definition, where we disallow the change of
>> the shared clocks for the slave.
>> If you are aware of patches/solutions, I'm happy to hear it...
> I don't have a real solution for this, but I'd be tempted to generate
> the M4 DT based on the HW the A5 is not using, and only describe that.
> Clearly not ideal, but it gives you the control you need (don't describe
> the HW you don't want to see touched)...
Yeah, that avoids the need for any synchronization for those
However, for some hardware (e.g. clocks and that interrupt controller)
both sides need access... I guess to do it properly, I need to take care
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/