Re: [PATCH 02/14] ARM: ARMv7M: Enlarge vector table to 256 entries

[Maxime Coquelin]

2015-02-13 11:00 GMT+01:00 Uwe Kleine-KÃnig <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 09:42:46AM +0100, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>> Hi Geert,
>>
>> 2015-02-12 21:34 GMT+01:00 Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:45 PM, Maxime Coquelin
>> > <mcoquelin.stm32@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> From Cortex-M4 and M7 reference manuals, the nvic supports up to 240
>> >> interrupts. So the number of entries in vectors table is 256.
>> >>
>> >> This patch adds the missing entries, and change the alignement, so that
>> >> vector_table remains naturally aligned.
>> >
>> > Shouldn't this depend on ARCH_STM32, or some other M4 or M7 specific
>> > Kconfig option, to avoid wasting the space on other CPUs?
>>
>> Actually, the STM32F429 has 90 interrupts, so it would need 106
>> entries in the vector table.
>> The maximum of supported interrupts is not only for Cortex-M4 and M7,
>> this is also true for Cortex-M3.
>>
>> I see two possibilities:
>>  1 - We declare the vector table for the maximum supported number of
>> IRQs, as this patch does.
>>         - Pro: it will be functionnal with all Cortex-M MCUs
>>         - Con: Waste of less than 1KB for memory
>>  2 - We introduce a config flag that provides the number of interrupts
>>         - Pro: No more memory waste
>>         - Con: Need to declare a per MCU model config flag.
> I'd vote for 2, something like:
>
>         config CPUV7M_NUM_IRQ
>                 int
>                 default 90 if STM32F429
>                 default 38 if EFM32GG
>                 default 240
>
> then there is a working default and platforms being short on memory can
> configure as appropriate. (The only down side is that if we create
> multi-platfrom images at some time in the future either all or none of
> the supported platforms must provide a value here.)

Ok, I'm fine doing this way.
I will implement this in the v2 if Russel is fine with the proposal too.

>
>> Then, regarding the natural alignment, is there a way to ensure it
>> depending on the value of a config flag?
> The exact wording in ARMARMv7-M is:
>
>         The Vector table must be naturally aligned to a power of two
>         whose alignment value is greater than or equal
>         to (Number of Exceptions supported x 4), with a minimum
>         alignment of 128 bytes.
>
>> Or we should keep it at the maximum value possible?
> So we need:
>
>         .align x
>
> with x being max(7, ceil(log((CPUV7M_NUM_IRQ + 16) * 4, 2))). So the
> alignment needed is between 7 and 10.
>
> If the assembler supports an expression here I'd use that. But before
> adding strange hacks to generate the right value there better go for a
> static value like:
>
>         /* The vector table must be naturally aligned */
>         #if CONFIG_CPUV7M_NUM_IRQ <= 112
>         .align 9 /* log2((112 + 16) * 4) */
>         #else
>         .align 10
>         #endif
>
> Further steps would be:
>
>         CONFIG_CPUV7M_NUM_IRQ <= 48 -> .align 8
>         CONFIG_CPUV7M_NUM_IRQ <= 16 -> .align 7
>
> Probably it's not worth to add the respective #ifdefs here.

I will go for the  #ifdefs.

Thanks,
Maxime

>
> Best regards
> Uwe
>
> --
> Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-KÃnig            |
> Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
--
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/