On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:30:09AM +0100, Jamie Iles wrote:
> +#ifdef CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER
> +static void vic_single_handle_irq(struct vic_device *vic, struct pt_regs
> *regs)
> +{
> + u32 stat, irq;
> +
> + stat = readl_relaxed(vic->base + VIC_IRQ_STATUS);
> + while (stat) {
> + irq = ffs(stat) - 1;
> + handle_IRQ(irq_domain_to_irq(&vic->domain, irq), regs);
> + stat &= ~(1 << irq);
> + }
> +}
> +
> +asmlinkage void __exception_irq_entry vic_handle_irq(struct pt_regs *regs)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < vic_id; ++i)
> + vic_single_handle_irq(&vic_devices[i], regs);
> +}
And if we receive another interrupt after the read of the register, we'll
have to exit all the way back (possibly to userspace) before re-entering
the IRQ handling paths back to this point to process it.
Is there any particular reason folk are destroying the built-in efficiency
of the IRQ handling which is common-place in the existing assembly
approach?
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
