Hi Roland,
On Tuesday 10 June 2008 18:18:50 Roland Dreier wrote:
> > > So just to be clear: this is a workaround for a hardware/firmware bug?
>
> > Yes it is.
>
> OK, so paulus et al... does it seem like a good approach to call H_EOI
> from driver code (given that this driver makes tons of other hcalls)?
>
> How critical is this? Since you said "corner case testing" I suspect we
> can defer this to 2.6.27 and maybe get it into -stable later?
No, it's ok with me if you pick this for 2.6.27.
>
> Also, out of curiousity:
>
> > +u64 hipz_h_eoi(int irq)
> > +{
> > + int value;
> > + unsigned long xirr;
> > +
> > + iosync();
>
> what is the iosync() required for here?
It's the same sequence as the interrupt handler for powerpc is implemented.
>
> > + value = (0xff << 24) | irq;
> > + xirr = value & 0xffffffff;
>
> given that irq and value are ints, is there any possible way value could
> have bits outside of the low 32 set? If you're worried about sign
> extension isn't it simpler to just make value unsigned?
>
> > + return plpar_hcall_norets(H_EOI, xirr);
> > +}
>
> ie why not:
>
> u64 hipz_h_eoi(int irq)
> {
> unsigned xirr;
>
> iosync();
> xirr = (0xff << 24) | irq;
> return plpar_hcall_norets(H_EOI, xirr);
> }
>
Yeah, you are rigth I will change that with the final patch.
I will send the final patch soon.
regards Stefan
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
