On 22/09/16 13:32, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 09/20/2016 11:21 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 19/09/16 18:39, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
>>> On 19.09.16 16:48, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +         /*
>>>>> +          * So we can just explicitly mask or unmask the IRQ, gaining
>>>>> +          * more compatibility with oddball irq controllers.
>>>>> +          */
>>>>> +         if (phys_active)
>>>>> +                 disable_percpu_irq(host_vtimer_irq);
>>>>> +         else
>>>>> +                 enable_percpu_irq(host_vtimer_irq, 0);
>>>> Since you are now targeting random irqchips (as opposed to a GIC
>>>> specifically), what guarantees that the timer is a per-cpu IRQ?
>>> This is the host interrupt controller - and we're already using percpu
>>> irqs on it :). Also as it happens the RPi has them percpu (anything else
>>> wouldn't make sense...).
>> Not really. The RPi is faking percpu interrupts just to have some level
>> of compatibility with the host arch timer driver. But nonetheless, if
>> you're opening the code to something else than a GIC, then you should
>> check that the interrupt you're getting is percpu.
> 
> This should already be covered by request_percpu_irq() in 
> kvm_timer_hyp_init(), no?

Ah, true. Ignore me, then.

        M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

Reply via email to