On 06. 02. 20 10:09, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 2020-02-06 07:06, Michal Simek wrote:
On 05. 02. 20 17:53, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 2020-02-05 14:05, Mubin Usman Sayyed wrote:
[...]
Âunsigned int xintc_get_irq(void)
Â{
-ÂÂÂÂÂÂ unsigned int hwirq, irq = -1;
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂ int hwirq, irq = -1;
-ÂÂÂÂÂÂ hwirq = xintc_read(IVR);
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂ hwirq = xintc_read(primary_intc->base + IVR);
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ if (hwirq != -1U)
-ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ irq = irq_find_mapping(xintc_irqc->root_domain, hwirq);
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ irq = irq_find_mapping(primary_intc->root_domain,
hwirq);
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ pr_debug("irq-xilinx: hwirq=%d, irq=%d\n", hwirq, irq);
I have the ugly feeling I'm reading the same code twice... Surely you
can
make these two functions common code.
I have some questions regarding this.
I have updated one patchset which is adding support for Microblaze SMP.
And when I was looking at current wiring of this driver I have decided
to change it.
I have enabled GENERIC_IRQ_MULTI_HANDLER and HANDLE_DOMAIN_IRQ.
This driver calls set_handle_irq(xil_intc_handle_irq)
and MB do_IRQ() call handle_arch_irq()
and IRQ routine here is using handle_domain_irq().
I would expect that this chained IRQ handler can also use
handle_domain_irq().
Is that correct understanding?
handle_domain_irq() implies that you have a set of pt_regs, representing
the context you interrupted. You can't fake that up, so I can't see how
you use it in a chained context.
ok. What's your recommendation for chained controller? Just go with
irq_find_mapping?