[PATCH] powerpc: Update MPIC workarounds

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 08:58 -0800, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 06:04:29PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > From: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel.crashing.org>
> > 
> > Cleanup the MPIC IO-APIC workarounds, make them a bit more generic,
> > smaller and faster. 
> 
> I really don't like all the hand-coded constants in this code. They're
> all over the place, and there's no descriptions of what they are there
> for. Lots of hardcoded offsets, etc. Since this is a cleanup, wouldn't
> it be a good time to use symbolic constands and/or comment them up a
> bit?

Heh, welcome to segher world :) I'll add more comments & symbolic
constants in the other patch that applies on top of this one.

> > Index: linux-work/arch/powerpc/sysdev/mpic.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-work.orig/arch/powerpc/sysdev/mpic.c	2005-12-06 16:17:43.000000000 +1100
> > +++ linux-work/arch/powerpc/sysdev/mpic.c	2005-12-07 13:30:45.000000000 +1100
> > @@ -175,57 +175,57 @@ static inline int mpic_is_ht_interrupt(s
> >  	return mpic->fixups[source_no].base != NULL;
> >  }
> >  
> > +
> >  static inline void mpic_apic_end_irq(struct mpic *mpic, unsigned int source_no)
> >  {
> >  	struct mpic_irq_fixup *fixup = &mpic->fixups[source_no];
> > -	u32 tmp;
> >  
> >  	spin_lock(&mpic->fixup_lock);
> > -	writeb(0x11 + 2 * fixup->irq, fixup->base);
> > -	tmp = readl(fixup->base + 2);
> > -	writel(tmp | 0x80000000ul, fixup->base + 2);
> > -	/* config writes shouldn't be posted but let's be safe ... */
> > -	(void)readl(fixup->base + 2);
> > +	writeb(0x11 + 2 * fixup->irq, fixup->base + 2);
> > +	writel(fixup->data, fixup->base + 4);
> 
> This seems like a functional change: Previous code wrote at base, new at
> base+2?

Hrm... I have to double check but I think the previous code hard coded
the bases for the 2 known APICs (incuding the +2) while the new code
properly scans the PCI capabilities and thus gets the capability base
instead, which is better (but needs +2 / +4). I suppose I could
pre-offset by 2 at discovery time to avoid an addition but I'm not sure
it's worth it.

Ben.