[PATCH 1/1] arch: arm: Program GIC LPI configuration table

[Vladimir Olovyannikov]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>
> Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019 11:02 AM
>
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 09:14:02PM -0800, Vladimir Olovyannikov wrote:
>
> > From: Bharat Kumar Reddy Gooty <bharat.gooty at broadcom.com>
> >
> > Programs the following:
> > 1. Redistributor PROCBASER configuration table (which is common for
> > all redistributors) 2. Redistributor pending table (PENDBASER), for
> > all the available redistributors.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Bharat Kumar Reddy Gooty
> <bharat.gooty at broadcom.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Olovyannikov
> > <vladimir.olovyannikov at broadcom.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/Kconfig              |  11 +++
> >  arch/arm/include/asm/gic-v3.h | 134
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  arch/arm/lib/Makefile         |   3 +
> >  arch/arm/lib/gic-v3-its.c     | 100 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  4 files changed, 248 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 arch/arm/include/asm/gic-v3.h  create mode 100644
> > arch/arm/lib/gic-v3-its.c
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig index
> > f96841c777..cf46aa867d 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> > @@ -61,6 +61,17 @@ config LNX_KRNL_IMG_TEXT_OFFSET_BASE  endif
> endif
> >
> > +config GIC_V3_ITS
> > +	bool "ARM GICV3 ITS"
> > +	default n
>
> Note that n is the default, we can drop this.
>
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/Makefile b/arch/arm/lib/Makefile index
> > 9de9a9acee..942ed1c73a 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/lib/Makefile
> > +++ b/arch/arm/lib/Makefile
> > @@ -52,6 +52,9 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_FSL_LAYERSCAPE) += ccn504.o  ifneq
> > ($(CONFIG_GICV2)$(CONFIG_GICV3),)
> >  obj-y	+= gic_64.o
> >  endif
> > +ifdef CONFIG_GIC_V3_ITS
> > +obj-y	+= gic-v3-its.o
> > +endif
> >  obj-y	+= interrupts_64.o
> >  else
> >  obj-y	+= interrupts.o
>
> This part of the Makefile can be tricky to read.  We should be able to
use the
> normal formation of 'obj-$(CONFIG_GIC_V3_ITS)' in this spot in the file
as we
> don't have other difficult to express concisely in make constraints
around.
>
> Other than that, please make sure the code is checkpatch clean, I don't
have
> any commentary on the implementation itself but I gather it's tested on
your
> end.  Thanks!
>
Thank you for review Tom,
These will be addressed in the next patch ver.

Vladimir
> --
> Tom