Re: [RFC PATCH v2 02/10] genirq: Define irq_ack() and irq_eoi() helpers

[Marc Zyngier]

On Tue, 25 May 2021 18:32:47 +0100,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> The newly-added IRQCHIP_AUTOMASKS_FLOW flag requires some additional
> bookkeeping around chip->{irq_ack, irq_eoi}() calls. Define wrappers around
> those chip callbacks to drive the IRQD_IRQ_FLOW_MASKED state of an IRQ when
> the chip has the IRQCHIP_AUTOMASKS_FLOW flag.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>  kernel/irq/chip.c      | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>  kernel/irq/internals.h |  2 ++
>  2 files changed, 18 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/kernel/irq/chip.c b/kernel/irq/chip.c
> index 21a21baa1366..793dbd8307b9 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq/chip.c
> +++ b/kernel/irq/chip.c
> @@ -408,6 +408,22 @@ void irq_percpu_disable(struct irq_desc *desc, unsigned int cpu)
>  	cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, desc->percpu_enabled);
>  }
>  
> +void ack_irq(struct irq_desc *desc)
> +{
> +	desc->irq_data.chip->irq_ack(&desc->irq_data);
> +
> +	if (desc->irq_data.chip->flags & IRQCHIP_AUTOMASKS_FLOW)
> +		irq_state_set_flow_masked(desc);
> +}
> +
> +void eoi_irq(struct irq_desc *desc)
> +{
> +	desc->irq_data.chip->irq_eoi(&desc->irq_data);
> +
> +	if (desc->irq_data.chip->flags & IRQCHIP_AUTOMASKS_FLOW)
> +		irq_state_clr_flow_masked(desc);
> +}
> +
>  static inline void mask_ack_irq(struct irq_desc *desc)
>  {
>  	if (desc->irq_data.chip->irq_mask_ack) {
> diff --git a/kernel/irq/internals.h b/kernel/irq/internals.h
> index b6c1cceddec0..090bd7868845 100644
> --- a/kernel/irq/internals.h
> +++ b/kernel/irq/internals.h
> @@ -87,6 +87,8 @@ extern void irq_enable(struct irq_desc *desc);
>  extern void irq_disable(struct irq_desc *desc);
>  extern void irq_percpu_enable(struct irq_desc *desc, unsigned int cpu);
>  extern void irq_percpu_disable(struct irq_desc *desc, unsigned int cpu);
> +extern void irq_ack(struct irq_desc *desc);
> +extern void irq_eoi(struct irq_desc *desc);

Nit: we have {un,}mask_irq, but you add irq_{ack,eoi}. It'd be good to
have some naming consistency (yes, this may/will clash with existing
code, but we can fix that as well).

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.