On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 18:34 +0800, Li Tony wrote: > > From: Michael Ellerman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: 2007年12月4日 13:38 > > To: Li Tony > > Cc: Li Tony; Gala Kumar; linuxppc-dev > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add IPIC MSI interrupt support > > > > On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 17:07 +0800, Li Li wrote: > > > Hi Michael, > > > > > > I emulate mpic to write this IPIC MSI routines. :) > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/83xx/mpc837x_mds.c > > > > > b/arch/powerpc/platforms/83xx/mpc837x_mds.c > > > > > index 6048f1b..dbea34b 100644 > > > > > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/83xx/mpc837x_mds.c > > > > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/83xx/mpc837x_mds.c > > > > > > > + > > > > > +#define ipic_msi_irq_to_hw(virq) > > ((unsigned int)irq_map[virq].hwirq) > > > > > > > > What's wrong with virq_to_hw() ? > > > > > > > > > > viqr_to_hw is not __inline__. > > > > Hmm, ok. The three places you use it you also take a spin > > lock, so I'm not sure the function call's really going to > > kill you performance wise. > > > > I am not very sure about spin_lock influence. > But maybe somebody will change the virq_to_hw implementation. > I will take virq_to_hw instead.
I mean the time to take the function call should be pretty small compared to taking and releasing a spinlock - but if you have performance numbers to prove otherwise let me know :) > I see that the virq_to_hw is do inline in 2.6.22. > Why remove it? It was made non-inline because modules want to use it, and we didn't want to export the irq_map to modules as well. cheers -- Michael Ellerman OzLabs, IBM Australia Development Lab wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183) We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
