On 06/17/2014 12:50 PM, Sören Brinkmann wrote: > On Tue, 2014-06-17 at 11:38AM +0900, Jongsung Kim wrote: >> On 06/16/2014 11:56 PM, Sören Brinkmann wrote: >>> On Mon, 2014-06-16 at 02:00PM +0900, Jongsung Kim wrote: >>>> On 06/13/2014 12:44 AM, Sören Brinkmann wrote: >>>>> This is now clearing all IRQ flags which is probably not what we want >>>>> here. This is handling RX only. We still want the non-RX interrupts to go >>>>> to >>>>> the actual interrupt service routing. >>>> >>>> The ISR(Interrupt Status Register) is read only in the interrupt service >>>> routine, macb_interrupt. But is partially cleared here and there. Further >>>> handler-functions decide jobs to be done by reading/checking other status >>>> registers. (e.g., TSR, RSR) So, clearing the ISR after reading looks not >>>> a bad idea. >>> >>> But you are clearing _all_ interrupt flags in the RX NAPI handler. >>> Doesn't that mean we might miss certain events? >> >> Please inspect my patch again. What I did in the macb_poll is removing >> statements clearing the Rx-complete interrupt, not clearing all the >> interrupts. > > Why is clearing those bits removed? It's probably not a big hit, but it might > result in a pointless interrupt which could be avoided. But it should > probably clear all RX interrupts - MACB_RX_INT_FLAGS - instead of just RCOMP. > For clear-on-read implementations it shouldn't make a difference.
I agree. But I removed it because I think stepping the same procedure regardless of the "gem_irq_clear_read" implementation is better than implementation-specific optimization. > And in the if-condition in that new helper, I'd add '&& status' to > avoid writing back zeros. Good point. I'll add it when I resend v2. Jongsung -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
