Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754741AbbG3IdT (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jul 2015 04:33:19 -0400 Received: from hqemgate15.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.64]:17349 "EHLO hqemgate15.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753367AbbG3IdR (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jul 2015 04:33:17 -0400 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqnvupgp08.nvidia.com on Thu, 30 Jul 2015 01:33:17 -0700 Message-ID: <55B9E145.9050202@nvidia.com> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 09:33:09 +0100 From: Jon Hunter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marc Zyngier , Russell King - ARM Linux CC: Nicolas Pitre , Thomas Gleixner , Jason Cooper , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip: gic: Add a cpu map for each GIC instance References: <1438180984-18219-1-git-send-email-jonathanh@nvidia.com> <20150729183321.GP7557@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <55B92939.5040101@nvidia.com> <55B9DE44.1010102@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <55B9DE44.1010102@arm.com> X-Originating-IP: [10.21.132.159] X-ClientProxiedBy: UKMAIL102.nvidia.com (10.26.138.15) To UKMAIL101.nvidia.com (10.26.138.13) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3369 Lines: 73 On 30/07/15 09:20, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 29/07/15 20:27, Jon Hunter wrote: >> >> On 29/07/15 19:33, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 03:43:04PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote: >>>> The gic_init_bases() function initialises an array that stores the mapping >>>> between the GIC and CPUs. This array is a global array that is >>>> unconditionally initialised on every call to gic_init_bases(). Although, >>>> it is not common for there to be more than one GIC instance, there are >>>> some devices that do support nested GIC controllers and gic_init_bases() >>>> can be called more than once. >>>> >>>> A 2nd call to gic_init_bases() will clear the previous CPU mapping and >>>> will only setup the mapping again for CPU0. This is because for child GIC >>>> controllers there is most likely only one recipient of the interrupt. >>>> >>>> Fix this by moving the CPU mapping array to the GIC chip data structure >>>> so that it is initialised for each GIC instance separately. It is assumed >>>> that the bL switcher code is only interested in the root or primary GIC >>>> instance. >>> >>> Does it make sense to expose the per-CPU-ness of the non-primary GIC? >>> If they are chained off a primary GIC SPI interrupt, then all IRQs on >>> the secondary GIC are routed to the same CPU that the SPI on the primary >>> GIC is routed to. >> >> I am looking at a use-case where there is a secondary GIC and the secondary >> GIC is used as a interrupt router between the main CPU cluster and another >> CPU. So in this case the mapping of a secondary is still of interest. This >> patch does not address setting up the secondary mapping, but avoids a >> secondary GIC overwriting the primary map (which we don't want). >> >>> Other features like the PPIs and SGIs in the secondary CPU should also >>> be ignored - they probably aren't used anyway. >> >> Yes, agree. >> >>> I have to say though... are the 1020 IRQs that the primary GIC provides >>> really not enough? What insane hardware needs more than 1020 IRQs? >> >> Ha. I guess some realview boards for a start ... >> >> # grep -r "gic_init(1" arch/arm/ >> arch/arm/mach-realview/realview_pb1176.c: gic_init(1, IRQ_PB1176_GIC_START, >> arch/arm/mach-realview/realview_eb.c: gic_init(1, 96, __io_address(REALVIEW_EB_GIC_DIST_BASE), >> arch/arm/mach-realview/realview_pb11mp.c: gic_init(1, IRQ_PB11MP_GIC_START, > > Different use case. These are development boards with a relatively > modular design, where the SoC may or may not have a GIC by itself. When > it has one, you end up with the on-board GIC being a secondary one. Yes, I understand that the use-case may be different, but I highlighted this as a use where the primary map would be overwritten as the driver is today. > I never thought someone would quote these designs as an example to > follow... ;-) I can't say if this example was followed, but nevertheless hardware designers certainly do get creative ;-) So we need to ensure the primary cpu map does not get overwritten by a secondary and I have a case where the secondary map is of interest. So are ok with this? Cheers Jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/