[PATCH v2] irq_domain/microblaze: Convert microblaze to use irq_domains

[Michal Simek]

Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 12:59:34PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
>> From: Grant Likely <grant.likely at secretlab.ca>
>>
>> Move get_irq to asm/irq.h from hardirq.h.
>>
>> Grant: Why does your patch setup NR_IRQS to 64? It seems to me
>> pretty big value because intc support up to 32 interrupts.
>> The main problem was with get_irq function because there must
>> check status of IVR.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely at secretlab.ca>
>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <monstr at monstr.eu>
>> Cc: Rob Herring <rob.herring at calxeda.com>
>> Cc: John Williams <john.williams at petalogix.com>
>> Cc: John Linn <john.linn at xilinx.com>
>>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/arch/microblaze/kernel/irq.c b/arch/microblaze/kernel/irq.c
>> index 3f613df..ace700a 100644
>> --- a/arch/microblaze/kernel/irq.c
>> +++ b/arch/microblaze/kernel/irq.c
>> @@ -31,14 +31,13 @@ void __irq_entry do_IRQ(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>  	trace_hardirqs_off();
>>  
>>  	irq_enter();
>> -	irq = get_irq(regs);
>> +	irq = get_irq();
>>  next_irq:
>>  	BUG_ON(!irq);
>> -	/* Substract 1 because of get_irq */
>> -	generic_handle_irq(irq + IRQ_OFFSET - NO_IRQ_OFFSET);
>> +	generic_handle_irq(irq);
>>  
>> -	irq = get_irq(regs);
>> -	if (irq) {
>> +	irq = get_irq();
>> +	if (irq != -1U) {
> 
> irq should never be -1 now with my current tree.  I've just pushed it out,
> can you take a look and try it with the original "if (!irq)" test?

That was the origin problem with your patch.
If you look at do_IRQ there is get_irq called twice. First time when IRQ happen and
then as checking if any other IRQ has happened from in time where irq was handled.
Probably much cleaner case is to just call get_irq once and then handle other IRQ.
But it takes some time to get to do_IRQ function because of reg saving and restoring, etc.
that's why if any other IRQ happened it is handled. (It is because Microblaze is slow).

Then look at get_irq function there is hwirq = in_be32(INTC_BASE + IVR). When IRQ happened
there is sensible value. If doesn't then there is -1.
In that case irq_find_mapping is not called and jump back.

If there is that concurrent IRQ handling you can't use if(!irq).

Does it make sense to you?

Thanks,
Michal





-- 
Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng)
w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854
Maintainer of Linux kernel 2.6 Microblaze Linux - http://www.monstr.eu/fdt/
Microblaze U-BOOT custodian