Re: [PATCH] irqchip/gic-v3: Fix EOImode semantics in git_cpu_sys_reg_init()

[Marc Zyngier]

Hi Zhiuyan,

On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 09:01:31 +0100,
Zhiyuan Dai <daizhiyuan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> ICC_CTLR_EL1 is a 64-bit register.EOImode, bit [1] EOI mode
> for the current Security state.
> 
> current code semantics is set ICC_CTLR_EL1 register to zero.
> This patch only set the EOImode Bit to zero.
> 
> refs: See Arm IHI 0069G, page 12-229.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Zhiyuan Dai <daizhiyuan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c       | 9 +++++++--
>  include/linux/irqchip/arm-gic-v3.h | 3 +--
>  2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> index fd4e9a3..96466fc0 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> @@ -967,6 +967,7 @@ static void gic_cpu_sys_reg_init(void)
>  	u64 need_rss = MPIDR_RS(mpidr);
>  	bool group0;
>  	u32 pribits;
> +	u32 val;
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * Need to check that the SRE bit has actually been set. If
> @@ -1009,12 +1010,16 @@ static void gic_cpu_sys_reg_init(void)
>  	 */
>  	gic_write_bpr1(0);
>  
> +	val = gic_read_ctlr();
> +
>  	if (static_branch_likely(&supports_deactivate_key)) {
>  		/* EOI drops priority only (mode 1) */
> -		gic_write_ctlr(ICC_CTLR_EL1_EOImode_drop);
> +		val |= ICC_CTLR_EL1_EOImode;
> +		gic_write_ctlr(val);
>  	} else {
>  		/* EOI deactivates interrupt too (mode 0) */
> -		gic_write_ctlr(ICC_CTLR_EL1_EOImode_drop_dir);
> +		val &= ~ICC_CTLR_EL1_EOImode;
> +		gic_write_ctlr(val);

I really wonder why you would need a read-modify-write sequence. There
are no bits in ICC_CTLR_EL1 that we would want to preserve:

- PHME: if it is writable, we really want it to be 0, as we don't use
  1:N distribution

- CBPR: We only use G1 interrupts, and we use ICC_BPR1_EL1 for
  preemption, hence the value being 0

All the other fields (apart from EOImode, obviously) are read-only or
RES0, as per the architecture.

Can you explain what you are trying to achieve here?

Thanks,

	M.

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