Message ID | D728AD1FA2543948B89DE29C5BF4CD0716AC37FD@bjmail1.bj.datangmobile.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Superseded, archived |
Delegated to: | Kumar Gala |
Headers | show |
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:16:07AM +0800, dayu@datangmobile.cn wrote: > From: Da Yu <dayu@datangmobile.cn> > Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:58:20 +0800 > Subject: [PATCH] fix the interrupt loss problem on powerpc IPIC (2.6.25-2.6.28) > > Signed-off-by: Da Yu <dayu@datangmobile.cn> Still no proper explanation in the patch. Also, with this change, is 'temp' really needed, or can you just pass in the mask by hand? -Olof > --- > > --- a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/ipic.c 2009-02-18 09:47:04.000000000 +0800 > +++ b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/ipic.c 2009-02-18 09:46:34.000000000 +0800 > @@ -568,8 +568,7 @@ static void ipic_ack_irq(unsigned int vi > > spin_lock_irqsave(&ipic_lock, flags); > > - temp = ipic_read(ipic->regs, ipic_info[src].ack); > - temp |= (1 << (31 - ipic_info[src].bit)); > + temp = 1 << (31 - ipic_info[src].bit); > ipic_write(ipic->regs, ipic_info[src].ack, temp); > > /* mb() can't guarantee that ack is finished. But it does finish
--- a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/ipic.c 2009-02-18 09:47:04.000000000 +0800 +++ b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/ipic.c 2009-02-18 09:46:34.000000000 +0800 @@ -568,8 +568,7 @@ static void ipic_ack_irq(unsigned int vi spin_lock_irqsave(&ipic_lock, flags); - temp = ipic_read(ipic->regs, ipic_info[src].ack); - temp |= (1 << (31 - ipic_info[src].bit)); + temp = 1 << (31 - ipic_info[src].bit); ipic_write(ipic->regs, ipic_info[src].ack, temp); /* mb() can't guarantee that ack is finished. But it does finish @@ -592,8 +591,7 @@ static void ipic_mask_irq_and_ack(unsign temp &= ~(1 << (31 - ipic_info[src].bit)); ipic_write(ipic->regs, ipic_info[src].mask, temp); - temp = ipic_read(ipic->regs, ipic_info[src].ack); - temp |= (1 << (31 - ipic_info[src].bit)); + temp = 1 << (31 - ipic_info[src].bit); ipic_write(ipic->regs, ipic_info[src].ack, temp); /* mb() can't guarantee that ack is finished. But it does finish