lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
From
Subject[PATCH] irqchip/sifive-plic: add irq_mask and irq_unmask
Date
As per the existing comment, irq_mask and irq_unmask do not need
to do anything for the PLIC. However, the functions must exist
(the pointers cannot be NULL) as they are not optional, based on
the documentation (Documentation/core-api/genericirq.rst) as well
as existing usage (e.g., include/linux/irqchip/chained_irq.h).

Signed-off-by: Darius Rad <darius@bluespec.com>
---
drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c | 13 +++++++++----
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
index cf755964f2f8..52d5169f924f 100644
--- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
+++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-sifive-plic.c
@@ -111,6 +111,13 @@ static void plic_irq_disable(struct irq_data *d)
plic_irq_toggle(cpu_possible_mask, d->hwirq, 0);
}

+/*
+ * There is no need to mask/unmask PLIC interrupts. They are "masked"
+ * by reading claim and "unmasked" when writing it back.
+ */
+static void plic_irq_mask(struct irq_data *d) { }
+static void plic_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *d) { }
+
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
static int plic_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d,
const struct cpumask *mask_val, bool force)
@@ -138,12 +145,10 @@ static int plic_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d,

static struct irq_chip plic_chip = {
.name = "SiFive PLIC",
- /*
- * There is no need to mask/unmask PLIC interrupts. They are "masked"
- * by reading claim and "unmasked" when writing it back.
- */
.irq_enable = plic_irq_enable,
.irq_disable = plic_irq_disable,
+ .irq_mask = plic_irq_mask,
+ .irq_unmask = plic_irq_unmask,
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
.irq_set_affinity = plic_set_affinity,
#endif
--
2.20.1
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-12 23:41    [W:0.142 / U:5.276 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site