On 27/05/21 13:21, Marc Zyngier wrote:

On Tue, 25 May 2021 18:32:54 +0100,
Valentin Schneider [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

@@ -1116,8 +1116,16 @@ static void gic_init_chip(struct gic_chip_data *gic, struct device *dev,

     if (use_eoimode1) {
             gic->chip.irq_mask = gic_eoimode1_mask_irq;
+		gic->chip.irq_ack = gic_eoi_irq;
             gic->chip.irq_eoi = gic_eoimode1_eoi_irq;
             gic->chip.irq_set_vcpu_affinity = gic_irq_set_vcpu_affinity;
+
+		/*
+		 * eoimode0 shouldn't expose FLOW_MASK because the priority
+		 * drop is undissociable from the deactivation, and we do need
+		 * the priority drop to happen within the flow handler.
+		 */
+		gic->chip.flags |= IRQCHIP_AUTOMASKS_FLOW | IRQCHIP_EOI_THREADED;
     }

     if (gic == &gic_data[0]) {

How about GICv2M, GICv3-MBI, and the collection of widget that build a
domain on top of a GIC domain? I'm worried that they now all need
updating one way or another...

Hmph, that's a good point. It's been a while since I've last stared at the
v2m, I'll go try to page that back in.

      M.

--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel