From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from canpmsgout07.his.huawei.com (canpmsgout07.his.huawei.com [113.46.200.222]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 463102737F3; Thu, 11 Dec 2025 01:58:09 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.222 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765418293; cv=none; b=t2aWNvQWH/V8x5kAwvf3h5jR8lBgpMcYeFaoUYAm83ql8ar2c82+6JNpveEe0Jkl1/1PUx+eCCTR6ZLKCBuXwbLX6RZPo/ZU36fXGsX+dJSDf7ozIAd9WT1BRJalgR4P5bd7AowZpJI26kVLi2d3Hmw9Fyybq/Af1NpKXCtQVC4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1765418293; c=relaxed/simple; bh=4Uy+hd2xMPAjARMaMXGWkErcniuZkSkMzFnfIfIIURY=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=Rjzy25CzETFu48I87cx/ZAWmECXahIHX9bmqhmhnR6IwNLSrYEbMN5Okr+awapYS0AUXk/0hDW48LgkVjM/e3sP3vukb5gWmUknqTpUqG08QE4XplighoWj8xisGSZ2W5JhlshsIablDLeGRLMoSQ0tuSBy/59dN4kygaDAk8vw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b=ZDHOSyFM; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.222 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b="ZDHOSyFM" dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=huawei.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=bR3ei3t6sIbfDA84Be9oAU8AIKfIUMK5ffu0ANrlMDE=; b=ZDHOSyFM6PO0jHOgMVo5RwZLxIIGlO2+pnLKS+bGRiILJuIHkU/EK/FaAij9kgopGVZ5F50Sw B1NAnvTgYBLTfgIb9TO0FYcG0FxKepjH5Ub5J8UUl0TfydaYvkSEK4TkeDSquRpq1K3Yj9VvHZ9 CkMmi/UZ/PrzuOBz6TRoQvU= Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.88.214]) by canpmsgout07.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4dRbKQ6LJtzLlTc; Thu, 11 Dec 2025 09:56:10 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggpemf500011.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.185.36.131]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 622051A016C; Thu, 11 Dec 2025 09:58:07 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.109.254] (10.67.109.254) by dggpemf500011.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.131) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Thu, 11 Dec 2025 09:58:06 +0800 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2025 09:58:06 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] mips: Move IP30 timer to request_percpu_irq() Content-Language: en-US To: Marc Zyngier , , CC: Daniel Lezcano , Thomas Gleixner , Thomas Bogendoerfer , Joshua Kinard References: <20251210082242.360936-1-maz@kernel.org> <20251210082242.360936-4-maz@kernel.org> From: Jinjie Ruan In-Reply-To: <20251210082242.360936-4-maz@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems500001.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.70) To dggpemf500011.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.131) On 2025/12/10 16:22, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Teach the SGI IP30 timer about request_percpu_irq(), which ultimately > will allow for the removal of the antiquated setup_percpu_irq() API. > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier > --- > arch/mips/include/asm/cevt-r4k.h | 1 - > arch/mips/kernel/cevt-r4k.c | 11 ----------- > arch/mips/sgi-ip30/ip30-timer.c | 5 ++--- > 3 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/mips/include/asm/cevt-r4k.h b/arch/mips/include/asm/cevt-r4k.h > index 2e13a038d2600..5229eb34f28a4 100644 > --- a/arch/mips/include/asm/cevt-r4k.h > +++ b/arch/mips/include/asm/cevt-r4k.h > @@ -23,7 +23,6 @@ void mips_event_handler(struct clock_event_device *dev); > int c0_compare_int_usable(void); > irqreturn_t c0_compare_interrupt(int, void *); > > -extern struct irqaction c0_compare_irqaction; > extern int cp0_timer_irq_installed; > > #endif /* __ASM_CEVT_R4K_H */ > diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/cevt-r4k.c b/arch/mips/kernel/cevt-r4k.c > index 5f6e9e2ebbdbb..f58325f9bd2bc 100644 > --- a/arch/mips/kernel/cevt-r4k.c > +++ b/arch/mips/kernel/cevt-r4k.c > @@ -159,17 +159,6 @@ irqreturn_t c0_compare_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id) > return IRQ_NONE; > } > > -struct irqaction c0_compare_irqaction = { > - .handler = c0_compare_interrupt, > - /* > - * IRQF_SHARED: The timer interrupt may be shared with other interrupts > - * such as perf counter and FDC interrupts. > - */ > - .flags = IRQF_PERCPU | IRQF_TIMER | IRQF_SHARED, The flags will add a "IRQF_NO_SUSPEND" when using request_percpu_irq(), is there any change? > - .name = "timer", > -}; > - > - > void mips_event_handler(struct clock_event_device *dev) > { > } > diff --git a/arch/mips/sgi-ip30/ip30-timer.c b/arch/mips/sgi-ip30/ip30-timer.c > index 7652f72f0daf6..294e1f7e6d8a6 100644 > --- a/arch/mips/sgi-ip30/ip30-timer.c > +++ b/arch/mips/sgi-ip30/ip30-timer.c > @@ -52,11 +52,10 @@ void __init plat_time_init(void) > int irq = get_c0_compare_int(); > > cp0_timer_irq_installed = 1; > - c0_compare_irqaction.percpu_dev_id = &mips_clockevent_device; > - c0_compare_irqaction.flags &= ~IRQF_SHARED; > irq_set_handler(irq, handle_percpu_devid_irq); > irq_set_percpu_devid(irq); > - setup_percpu_irq(irq, &c0_compare_irqaction); > + WARN_ON(request_percpu_irq(irq, c0_compare_interrupt, > + "timer", &mips_clockevent_device)); > enable_percpu_irq(irq, IRQ_TYPE_NONE); > > ip30_heart_clocksource_init();