Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181130080207.20505-1-anup@brainfault.org> <20181130080207.20505-4-anup@brainfault.org>
 <20181217182719.GC7086@infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <20181217182719.GC7086@infradead.org>
From:   Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>
Date:   Tue, 18 Dec 2018 14:20:10 +0530
Message-ID: <CAAhSdy3i+ap2J0By3nRqK6yvb8oD4-+2QwUO9PH9GM+0odKqSA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] irqchip: sifive-plic: More flexible plic_irq_toggle()
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        Atish Patra <atish.patra@wdc.com>,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 11:57 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > -static inline void plic_toggle(struct plic_handler *handler,
> > -                             int hwirq, int enable)
> > +static void plic_toggle(struct plic_handler *handler, int hwirq, int enable)
> >  {
> >       u32 __iomem *reg = handler->enable_base + (hwirq / 32) * sizeof(u32);
> >       u32 hwirq_mask = 1 << (hwirq % 32);
> > @@ -92,27 +91,27 @@ static inline void plic_toggle(struct plic_handler *handler,
> >       raw_spin_unlock(&handler->enable_lock);
> >  }
> >
> > -static inline void plic_irq_toggle(struct irq_data *d, int enable)
> > +static void plic_irq_toggle(const struct cpumask *mask, int hwirq, int enable)
>
> It also removes inline statements which seems rather unrelated to
> the patch description.

Actually these functions should not be inline because plic_toggle() uses
raw_spin_lock() and plic_irq_toggle() uses for-loop.

>
> Also the actual addintion of the single cpumask argument is simple
> enough that it should probably go into the patch that makes use of it.

OK, I will have separate patch for removing "inline" and move addition
of cpumask argument to last patch.

Regards,
Anup