[PATCHv2 02/10] ARM: vic: MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER handler
Jamie Iles
jamie at jamieiles.com
Wed Sep 28 22:08:32 EST 2011
Hi Linus,
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 01:09:48PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Jamie Iles <jamie at jamieiles.com> wrote:
>
> > +static void vic_single_handle_irq(struct vic_device *vic, struct pt_regs *regs)
> > +{
> > + u32 stat, irq;
> > + bool handled = false;
> > +
> > + while (!handled) {
> > + stat = readl_relaxed(vic->base + VIC_IRQ_STATUS);
> > + if (!stat)
> > + break;
> > +
> > + while (stat) {
> > + irq = fls(stat) - 1;
>
> Isn't fls "find last set"?
>
> That means IRQs with higher numbers will be handled first will it not?
>
> For U300 IRQs with lower numbers will be handled first
> by iteratively testing bit 0 and shifting right:
>
> -1002: tst \irqstat, #1
> - bne 1003f
> - add \irqnr, \irqnr, #1
> - movs \irqstat, \irqstat, lsr #1
> - bne 1002b
>
> So I would use ffs() for this to work the same way as before in
> U300.
>
> Since this can have some performance impact, if the platforms differ
> in whether they handle IRQs from low to high or from high to low
> might need to be a flag passed in to vic_init() or so...
I don't know how important the ordering is, but if it is important then
we could have vic_handle_irq_msb_first() and vic_handle_irq_lsb_first()
as the handlers so there isn't any additional indirection/selection in
the interrupt hot-path.
Jamie
More information about the devicetree-discuss
mailing list