Re: [PATCH v2 14/16] irqchip: mips-gic: Support local interrupts

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Fri, 5 Sep 2014, Andrew Bresticker wrote:
>  static void gic_mask_irq(struct irq_data *d)
>  {
> -	GIC_CLR_INTR_MASK(d->irq - gic_irq_base);
> +	unsigned int irq = d->irq - gic_irq_base;
> +
> +	if (gic_is_local_irq(irq)) {
> +		GICWRITE(GIC_REG(VPE_LOCAL, GIC_VPE_RMASK),
> +			 1 << GIC_INTR_BIT(gic_hw_to_local_irq(irq)));
> +	} else {
> +		GIC_CLR_INTR_MASK(irq);
> +	}
>  }
>  
>  static void gic_unmask_irq(struct irq_data *d)
>  {
> -	GIC_SET_INTR_MASK(d->irq - gic_irq_base);
> +	unsigned int irq = d->irq - gic_irq_base;
> +
> +	if (gic_is_local_irq(irq)) {
> +		GICWRITE(GIC_REG(VPE_LOCAL, GIC_VPE_SMASK),
> +			 1 << GIC_INTR_BIT(gic_hw_to_local_irq(irq)));
> +	} else {
> +		GIC_SET_INTR_MASK(irq);
> +	}

Why are you adding a conditional in all these functions instead of
having two interrupt chips with separate callbacks and irqdata?

And looking at GIC_SET_INTR_MASK(irq) makes me shudder even more. The
whole thing can be replaced with the generic interrupt chip functions.

If you set it up proper, then there is not a single conditional or
runtime calculation of bitmasks, address offsets etc.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/