[PATCH 1/3] Powerpc: mpc85xx: refactor the PM operations
Scott Wood
scottwood at freescale.com
Thu Aug 6 15:46:25 AEST 2015
On Thu, 2015-08-06 at 12:20 +0800, Chenhui Zhao wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Scott Wood <scottwood at freescale.com>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-08-05 at 18:11 +0800, Chenhui Zhao wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Scott Wood <scottwood at freescale.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2015-08-03 at 19:32 +0800, Chenhui Zhao wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Scott Wood
> > > <scottwood at freescale.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Could you explain irq_mask()? Why would there still be IRQs
> > > > > destined
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > this CPU at this point?
> > > > >
> > > > > This function just masks irq by setting the registers in RCPM
> > > (for
> > > > > example, RCPM_CPMIMR, RCPM_CPMCIMR). Actually, all irqs to
> > > this CPU
> > > > > have been migrated to other CPUs.
> > > >
> > > > So why do we need to set those bits in RCPM? Is it just caution?
> > >
> > > Setting these bits can mask interrupts signalled to RCPM from MPIC
> > > as a
> > > means of
> > > waking up from a lower power state. So, cores will not be waked up
> > > unexpectedly.
> >
> > Why would the MPIC be signalling those interrupts if they've been
> > masked at
> > the MPIC?
> >
> > -Scott
> >
>
> The interrupts to RCPM from MPIC are IRQ, Machine Check, NMI and
> Critical interrupts. Some of them didn't be masked in MPIC.
What interrupt could actually happen to a sleeping cpu that this protects
against?
-Scott
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list