Hi, Marc,
On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 09:15:17AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>>+#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> >>>+ set_send_ipi(&csky_mpintc_send_ipi);
> >>>+
> >>>+ set_ipi_irq_mapping(&csky_mpintc_ipi_irq_mapping);
> >>
> >>Since you seem to be inventing a new set_send_ipi callback, why don't you
> >>define it as:
> >>
> >>void set_send_ipi(void (*func)(const struct cpumask *),
> >> unsigned int ipi_irq);
> >>after having created the mapping for the IPI interrupt? It would avoid this
> >>rather pointless mapping callback.
> >
> >I'll define it to:
> >
> >void set_send_ipi(void (*func)(const struct cpumask *));
> >
> >IPI_IRQ only use software-irq-15 in mpintc driver, so arch needn't care
> >about irq-num.
>
> Except that your SMP code does a request_irq on the result of
> create_mapping. Who is going to do that if you don't pass the Linux irq
> around?
Yes, My SMP code does a request_irq on the result of create_mapping.
Here is my smp.c code and it use a result of create_mapping by
arch_ipi_irq_mapping()
callback in irq-csky-mpintc.c
void __init setup_smp_ipi(void)
{
int rc;
ipi_irq = arch_ipi_irq_mapping();
if (ipi_irq == 0)
panic("%s IRQ mapping failed\n", __func__);
rc = request_percpu_irq(ipi_irq, handle_ipi, "IPI Interrupt",
&ipi_dummy_dev);
if (rc)
panic("%s IRQ request failed\n", __func__);
enable_smp_ipi();
}
Best Regards
Guo Ren
