[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 16/16] hw/intc/arm_gic: add gic_update() for
From: |
Daniel Thompson |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 16/16] hw/intc/arm_gic: add gic_update() for grouping |
Date: |
Fri, 07 Nov 2014 12:44:12 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 |
On 30/10/14 22:12, Greg Bellows wrote:
> From: Fabian Aggeler <address@hidden>
>
> GICs with grouping (GICv2 or GICv1 with Security Extensions) have a
> different exception generation model which is more complicated than
> without interrupt grouping. We add a new function to handle this model.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Aggeler <address@hidden>
>
> ---
>
> v1 -> v2
> - Fix issue in gic_update_with_grouping() using the wrong combination of
> flag and CPU control bank for checking if group 1 interrupts are enabled.
> ---
> hw/intc/arm_gic.c | 87
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> hw/intc/gic_internal.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/intc/arm_gic.c b/hw/intc/arm_gic.c
> index 808aa18..e33c470 100644
> --- a/hw/intc/arm_gic.c
> +++ b/hw/intc/arm_gic.c
> @@ -52,6 +52,87 @@ static inline bool ns_access(void)
> return true;
> }
>
> +inline void gic_update_with_grouping(GICState *s)
> +{
> + int best_irq;
> + int best_prio;
> + int irq;
> + int irq_level;
> + int fiq_level;
> + int cpu;
> + int cm;
> + bool next_int;
> + bool next_grp0;
> + bool gicc_grp0_enabled;
> + bool gicc_grp1_enabled;
> +
> + for (cpu = 0; cpu < NUM_CPU(s); cpu++) {
> + cm = 1 << cpu;
> + gicc_grp0_enabled = s->cpu_control[cpu][0] & GICC_CTLR_S_EN_GRP0;
> + gicc_grp1_enabled = s->cpu_control[cpu][1] & GICC_CTLR_NS_EN_GRP1;
> + next_int = 0;
> + next_grp0 = 0;
> +
> + s->current_pending[cpu] = 1023;
> + if ((!s->enabled_grp[0] && !s->enabled_grp[1])
> + || (!gicc_grp0_enabled && !gicc_grp1_enabled)) {
> + qemu_irq_lower(s->parent_irq[cpu]);
> + qemu_irq_lower(s->parent_fiq[cpu]);
> + return;
Shouldn't that be continue? Otherwise the state of CPU[N-1] influences
whether interrupts can be delivered to CPU[N].
> + }
> +
> + /* Determine highest priority pending interrupt */
> + best_prio = 0x100;
> + best_irq = 1023;
> + for (irq = 0; irq < s->num_irq; irq++) {
> + if (GIC_TEST_ENABLED(irq, cm) && gic_test_pending(s, irq, cm)) {
> + if (GIC_GET_PRIORITY(irq, cpu) < best_prio) {
> + best_prio = GIC_GET_PRIORITY(irq, cpu);
> + best_irq = irq;
> + }
> + }
> + }
> +
> + /* Priority of IRQ higher than priority mask? */
> + if (best_prio < s->priority_mask[cpu]) {
> + s->current_pending[cpu] = best_irq;
> + if (GIC_TEST_GROUP0(best_irq, cm) && s->enabled_grp[0]) {
> + /* TODO: Add subpriority handling (binary point register) */
> + if (best_prio < s->running_priority[cpu]) {
> + next_int = true;
> + next_grp0 = true;
> + }
> + } else if (!GIC_TEST_GROUP0(best_irq, cm) && s->enabled_grp[1]) {
> + /* TODO: Add subpriority handling (binary point register) */
> + if (best_prio < s->running_priority[cpu]) {
> + next_int = true;
> + next_grp0 = false;
> + }
> + }
> + }
> +
> + fiq_level = 0;
> + irq_level = 0;
> + if (next_int) {
> + if (next_gr && (s->cpu_control[cpu][0] & GICC_CTLR_S_FIQ_EN)) {
> + if (gicc_grp0_enabled) {
> + fiq_level = 1;
> + DPRINTF("Raised pending FIQ %d (cpu %d)\n", best_irq,
> cpu);
> + }
> + } else {
> + if ((next_grp0 && gicc_grp0_enabled)
> + || (!next_grp0 && gicc_grp1_enabled)) {
> + irq_level = 1;
> + DPRINTF("Raised pending IRQ %d (cpu %d)\n", best_irq,
> cpu);
> + }
> + }
> + }
> + /* Set IRQ/FIQ signal */
> + qemu_set_irq(s->parent_irq[cpu], irq_level);
> + qemu_set_irq(s->parent_fiq[cpu], fiq_level);
> + }
> +}
> +
> inline void gic_update_no_grouping(GICState *s)
> {
> int best_irq;
> @@ -95,7 +176,11 @@ inline void gic_update_no_grouping(GICState *s)
> /* Update interrupt status after enabled or pending bits have been changed.
> */
> void gic_update(GICState *s)
> {
> - gic_update_no_grouping(s);
> + if (s->revision >= 2 || s->security_extn) {
> + gic_update_with_grouping(s);
> + } else {
> + gic_update_no_grouping(s);
> + }
> }
>
> void gic_set_pending_private(GICState *s, int cpu, int irq)
> diff --git a/hw/intc/gic_internal.h b/hw/intc/gic_internal.h
> index e16a7e5..01859ed 100644
> --- a/hw/intc/gic_internal.h
> +++ b/hw/intc/gic_internal.h
> @@ -73,6 +73,7 @@
> void gic_set_pending_private(GICState *s, int cpu, int irq);
> uint32_t gic_acknowledge_irq(GICState *s, int cpu);
> void gic_complete_irq(GICState *s, int cpu, int irq);
> +inline void gic_update_with_grouping(GICState *s);
> inline void gic_update_no_grouping(GICState *s);
> void gic_update(GICState *s);
> void gic_init_irqs_and_distributor(GICState *s);
>
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 16/16] hw/intc/arm_gic: add gic_update() for grouping,
Daniel Thompson <=