Re: [patch 5/5] irqchip: armanda: Sanitize set_irq_affinity()

[Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net>]

Thomas,

On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 06:04:41PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> On 18/03/2014 22:04, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> > On 18/03/2014 21:55, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> On Tue, 18 Mar 2014, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> >>> On 07/03/2014 18:17, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>>> It might be the readback of the routing register. I don't have the
> >>>> datasheet of this.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry for the delay, I was on vacation without the hardware to test it.
> >>>
> >>> Indeed it was the readback of the routing register. (Unfortunately the
> >>> datasheet was not yet publicly available :(  ). In your patch by replacing
> >>> the line:
> >>>
> >>> writel(mask, main_int_base + ARMADA_370_XP_INT_SOURCE_CTL(hwirq));
> >>>
> >>> by the following ones:
> >>>
> >>> reg = readl(main_int_base + ARMADA_370_XP_INT_SOURCE_CTL(hwirq));
> >>> reg = (reg & (~ARMADA_370_XP_INT_SOURCE_CPU_MASK)) | mask;
> >>> writel(reg, main_int_base + ARMADA_370_XP_INT_SOURCE_CTL(hwirq));
> >>>
> >>> with
> >>> #define ARMADA_370_XP_INT_SOURCE_CPU_MASK	0xF
> >>>
> >>> Then it worked.
> >>>
> >>> About masking with the online CPU in the original code, the purpose
> >>> was to allow sharing the SoC with an other OS by doing AMP. This feature
> >>> is part of the Marvell version of the kernel.
> >>> The idea was to bring this latter in the vanilla kernel, but I am not sure
> >>> that all the part needed for AMP are acceptable for mainline. So I can add
> >>> it back later when we will need it.
> >>
> >> Right.
> >>
> >> So are you ok with that patch (including your change) ? If you send me
> >> tested/acked-by i'll route it for 3.15
> > 
> > With the change I included you can add my
> > 
> > Acked-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>
> > Tested-by: Gregory CLEMENT <gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>
> > 
> 
> I have just noticed that this patch was not merged in 3.15.
> Actually it is not in the core/irq branch of tip.git with
> the other patches of the same series.
> Is there any reason for this?

I know your mail filters are pretty aggressive and I just wanted to make
sure you saw this.  I'm also not sure what happened here.

thx,

Jason.