On 28/01/2019 11:59, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2019 15:33:39 +0000,
> Julien Thierry <julien.thie...@arm.com> wrote:
>>
>> Provide a higher priority to be used for pseudo-NMIs. When such an
>> interrupt is received, keep interrupts fully disabled at CPU level to
>> prevent receiving other pseudo-NMIs while handling the current one.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Julien Thierry <julien.thie...@arm.com>
>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de>
>> Cc: Jason Cooper <ja...@lakedaemon.net>
>> Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyng...@arm.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
>> index 5374b43..4df1e94 100644
>> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
>> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
>> @@ -41,6 +41,8 @@
>>
>> #include "irq-gic-common.h"
>>
>> +#define GICD_INT_NMI_PRI (GICD_INT_DEF_PRI & ~0x80)
>> +
>> #define FLAGS_WORKAROUND_GICR_WAKER_MSM8996 (1ULL << 0)
>>
>> struct redist_region {
>> @@ -381,12 +383,45 @@ static u64 gic_mpidr_to_affinity(unsigned long mpidr)
>> return aff;
>> }
>>
>> +static inline void gic_deactivate_unexpected_irq(u32 irqnr)
>
> Same remark as on some other patches: you should be able to drop the
> inline attribute without any ill effect. I'd also like this to be
> renamed "gic_deactivate_spurious", or something similar.
>
I'm a bit concern about using spurious since it is not related to
GICC_INT_SPURIOUS, we actually read a valid IRQ number, we just don't
know how we should handle it.
Would "gic_deactivate_unhandled" work? Or "gic_deactivate_bad"?
Thanks,
--
Julien Thierry
