The irq_set_affinity_hint() will always fail when !SMP and
Networking will fail on Keystone 2 devices in this case.
Hence, fix by ignoring IRQ affinity settings when !SMP.
Cc: Murali Karicheri <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <[email protected]>
---
drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c b/drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c
index b73e353..3aa0470 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/ti/knav_qmss_queue.c
@@ -1228,7 +1228,7 @@ static int knav_setup_queue_range(struct knav_device *kdev,
range->num_irqs++;
- if (oirq.args_count == 3)
+ if (IS_ENABLED(SMP) && oirq.args_count == 3)
range->irqs[i].cpu_map =
(oirq.args[2] & 0x0000ff00) >> 8;
}
--
2.10.1
On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 4:15:08 PM CET Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> range->num_irqs++;
>
> - if (oirq.args_count == 3)
> + if (IS_ENABLED(SMP) && oirq.args_count == 3)
> range->irqs[i].cpu_map =
> (oirq.args[2] & 0x0000ff00) >> 8;
>
I think you mean CONFIG_SMP, not SMP. With the change above, the
code will never be executed.
Arnd
On 11/30/2016 05:37 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 4:15:08 PM CET Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>> range->num_irqs++;
>>
>> - if (oirq.args_count == 3)
>> + if (IS_ENABLED(SMP) && oirq.args_count == 3)
>> range->irqs[i].cpu_map =
>> (oirq.args[2] & 0x0000ff00) >> 8;
>>
>
> I think you mean CONFIG_SMP, not SMP. With the change above, the
> code will never be executed.
>
Thanks. I'll resend.
--
regards,
-grygorii
Hi Grygorii,
On 11/30/2016 3:37 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 4:15:08 PM CET Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>> range->num_irqs++;
>>
>> - if (oirq.args_count == 3)
>> + if (IS_ENABLED(SMP) && oirq.args_count == 3)
>> range->irqs[i].cpu_map =
>> (oirq.args[2] & 0x0000ff00) >> 8;
>>
>
> I think you mean CONFIG_SMP, not SMP. With the change above, the
> code will never be executed.
>
Is that the full patch ? Can you post updated patch wit above fixed
and copy me. I will pick it up.
Regards,
Santosh
Hi Santosh,
On 11/30/2016 11:01 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> Hi Grygorii,
>
> On 11/30/2016 3:37 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 4:15:08 PM CET Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>>> range->num_irqs++;
>>>
>>> - if (oirq.args_count == 3)
>>> + if (IS_ENABLED(SMP) && oirq.args_count == 3)
>>> range->irqs[i].cpu_map =
>>> (oirq.args[2] & 0x0000ff00) >> 8;
>>>
>>
>> I think you mean CONFIG_SMP, not SMP. With the change above, the
>> code will never be executed.
>>
> Is that the full patch ? Can you post updated patch wit above fixed
> and copy me. I will pick it up.
>
I've sent v2.
For some reason you e-email is not working - delivery failure
[email protected]
--
regards,
-grygorii
On 11/30/2016 9:10 AM, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>
> Hi Santosh,
>
> On 11/30/2016 11:01 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
>> Hi Grygorii,
>>
>> On 11/30/2016 3:37 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 4:15:08 PM CET Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>>>> range->num_irqs++;
>>>>
>>>> - if (oirq.args_count == 3)
>>>> + if (IS_ENABLED(SMP) && oirq.args_count == 3)
>>>> range->irqs[i].cpu_map =
>>>> (oirq.args[2] & 0x0000ff00) >> 8;
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think you mean CONFIG_SMP, not SMP. With the change above, the
>>> code will never be executed.
>>>
>> Is that the full patch ? Can you post updated patch wit above fixed
>> and copy me. I will pick it up.
>>
>
> I've sent v2.
>
> For some reason you e-email is not working - delivery failure
> [email protected]
>
Weird. I was getting all the emails. Thanks for bouncing the thread.
I will check.
On 11/30/2016 9:14 AM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On 11/30/2016 9:10 AM, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>>
[...]
>>
>> For some reason you e-email is not working - delivery failure
>> [email protected]
>>
> Weird. I was getting all the emails. Thanks for bouncing the thread.
> I will check.
>
Seems like there was issue with kernel.org mail host which I have
been told fixed now. You shouldn't see those bouncing anymore.
Regards,
Santosh