On 5/26/25 8:44 PM, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
+ if ( !dt_property_read_u32(node, "riscv,guest-index-bits",
+ &imsic_cfg.guest_index_bits) )
+ imsic_cfg.guest_index_bits = 0;
+ tmp = BITS_PER_LONG - IMSIC_MMIO_PAGE_SHIFT;
+ if ( tmp < imsic_cfg.guest_index_bits )
+ {
+ printk(XENLOG_ERR "%s: guest index bits too big\n",
+ dt_node_name(node));
+ rc = -ENOENT;
+ goto cleanup;
+ }
+
+ /* Find number of HART index bits */
+ if ( !dt_property_read_u32(node, "riscv,hart-index-bits",
+ &imsic_cfg.hart_index_bits) )
+ {
+ /* Assume default value */
+ imsic_cfg.hart_index_bits = fls(*nr_parent_irqs);
+ if ( BIT(imsic_cfg.hart_index_bits, UL) < *nr_parent_irqs )
+ imsic_cfg.hart_index_bits++;
Since fls() returns a 1-based bit number, isn't it rather that in the
exact-power-of-2 case you'd need to subtract 1?
Agree, in this case, -1 should be taken into account.
Hmm, it seems like in case of fls() returns a 1-based bit number there
is not need for the check:
(2) if ( BIT(imsic_cfg.hart_index_bits, UL) < *nr_parent_irqs )
We could do imsic_cfg.hart_index_bits = fls(*nr_parent_irqs - 1) (1) without
checking *nr_parent_irqs is power-of-two or not, and then just leave the
check (2).
And with (1), the check (2) is only needed for the case *nr_parent_irqs=1, if
I amn't mistaken something. And if I'm not mistaken, then probably it make
sense to change (2) to if ( *nr_parent_irqs == 1 ) + some comment why this
case is so special.
Does it make sense?
~ Oleksii
