[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 3/3] Allow setup_irq call for VPE1 timer.

To: Anoop P <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Allow setup_irq call for VPE1 timer.
From: Ralf Baechle <>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:24:10 +0000
Cc:,, David Howells <>, Thomas Gleixner <>, David Daney <>,
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 08:37:12PM +0530, Anoop P wrote:

> From: Anoop P A <>
> VSMP configuration can have seperate timer interrupts for each VPE.Need to 
> setup IRQ for VPE1 timer.

>       if (cp0_timer_irq_installed)
>               return 0;
> -
> +#endif
>       cp0_timer_irq_installed = 1;
>       setup_irq(irq, &c0_compare_irqaction);

On the stylistic side adding an #ifdef gives me wrinkles.

With CONFIG_MIPS_MT_SMP this patch results in sharing c0_compare_irqaction
between multiple interrupts which is broken.  Struct irqaction contains
the interrupt number, all registered irqaction structs are part of a chained
list via its ->next member and also there is a per interrupt proc directory.

To fix this properly you'll have to introduce do a bit of bookkeeping - you
want to register each interrupt only once - and allocate a struct irqaction
per registered timer interrupt.

The allocation is made a little trickier by kmalloc not being available
yet by the time this code is getting invoked via time_init() so you'll
have to move it to run via the late_time_init hook like x86:

static __init void x86_late_time_init(void)
        ... do the real work ...

/* ... */

void __init time_init(void)
        late_time_init = x86_late_time_init;

Which makes me wonder if there is a reason why we need to have both
time_init() and late_time_init() - can't we just move the time_init()?


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [PATCH 3/3] Allow setup_irq call for VPE1 timer., Ralf Baechle <=