Hi,

This patch has been tested on the SOC: ti AM572x and hisilicon hi35xx, it works.
Please review this patch. Any suggestions will be welcome,thanks.

Cheng

on 10/13/2016 06:57 PM, Cheng Chao wrote:
> GIC can distribute an interrupt to more than one cpu,
> but now, gic_set_affinity sets only one cpu to handle interrupt.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Cheng Chao <cs.os.ker...@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> index 58e5b4e..198d33f 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> @@ -328,18 +328,38 @@ static int gic_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d, const 
> struct cpumask *mask_val,
>       unsigned int cpu, shift = (gic_irq(d) % 4) * 8;
>       u32 val, mask, bit;
>       unsigned long flags;
> +     u32 valid_mask;
>  
> -     if (!force)
> -             cpu = cpumask_any_and(mask_val, cpu_online_mask);
> -     else
> +     if (!force) {
> +             valid_mask = cpumask_bits(mask_val)[0];
> +             valid_mask &= cpumask_bits(cpu_online_mask)[0];
> +
> +             cpu = cpumask_any((struct cpumask *)&valid_mask);
> +     } else {
>               cpu = cpumask_first(mask_val);
> +     }
>  
>       if (cpu >= NR_GIC_CPU_IF || cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
>               return -EINVAL;
>  
>       gic_lock_irqsave(flags);
>       mask = 0xff << shift;
> -     bit = gic_cpu_map[cpu] << shift;
> +
> +     if (!force) {
> +             bit = 0;
> +
> +             for_each_cpu(cpu, (struct cpumask *)&valid_mask) {
> +                     if (cpu >= NR_GIC_CPU_IF || cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)
> +                             break;
> +
> +                     bit |= gic_cpu_map[cpu];
> +             }
> +
> +             bit = bit << shift;
> +     } else {
> +             bit = gic_cpu_map[cpu] << shift;
> +     }
> +
>       val = readl_relaxed(reg) & ~mask;
>       writel_relaxed(val | bit, reg);
>       gic_unlock_irqrestore(flags);
> 

Reply via email to