On 2015/1/9 1:32, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> With the landing of stacked irq domains in 3.19, we have ended up in a
> situation where we have a stack of IRQ controllers, each with their
> set of flags, but the core code is only able to look at the top-most,
> which is not very helpful. This small series is trying to fix this.
> 
> The first patch converts all access to desc->irq_data.chip->flags to
> using an accessor, without changing anything else. The second patch
> adds some logic to combine these flags as we allocate the interrupts,
> ultimately storing the resulting set as part of the irq_desc
> structure.
> 
> We end-up with a configuration where the flags can either be located
> in the irq_chip structure (non stacked case), or in the irq_desc
> (stacked case). While this isn't really ideal, this gives at least the
> right level of information to the rest of the IRQ framework.
Hi Mark,
        By this way, we need to aggregate irq_chip flags for every
irq. How about changing irq_desc_get_chip_flags(struct irq_desc *desc)
to irq_desc_check_chip_flags(struct irq_desc *desc, unsigned int flags)
which dynamically walks the stacked irqchips?
Thanks!
Gerry

> 
> Based on 3.19-rc3, and available at:
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/maz/arm-platforms.git 
> irq/stacked-irqchip-flags
> 
> Marc Zyngier (2):
>   genirq: Abstract access to irq_chip flags
>   genirq: Allow irq_desc to carry the union of stacked irq_chip flags
> 
>  include/linux/irq.h     |  4 ++++
>  include/linux/irqdesc.h | 12 ++++++++++++
>  kernel/irq/chip.c       | 10 +++++-----
>  kernel/irq/irqdesc.c    |  3 +++
>  kernel/irq/irqdomain.c  | 20 +++++++++++++++++++-
>  kernel/irq/manage.c     |  6 +++---
>  kernel/irq/pm.c         |  2 +-
>  7 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to