Re: [PATCH 2/8] irqchip: mips-gic: Use irq_cpu_online to (un)mask all-VP(E) IRQs

[Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>]

On Mon, Oct 30 2017 at  9:36:16 am GMT, Paul Burton <paul.burton@mips.com> wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 08:00:08AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> >  static int __init gic_of_init(struct device_node *node,
>> >  			      struct device_node *parent)
>> > @@ -768,6 +806,8 @@ static int __init gic_of_init(struct device_node *node,
>> >  		}
>> >  	}
>> >  
>> > -	return 0;
>> > +	return cpuhp_setup_state(CPUHP_AP_IRQ_GIC_STARTING,
>> > +				 "irqchip/mips/gic:starting",
>> > +				 gic_cpu_startup, NULL);
>> 
>> I'm wondering about this. CPUHP_AP_IRQ_GIC_STARTING is a symbol that is
>> used on ARM platforms. You're very welcome to use it (as long as nobody
>> builds a system with both an ARM GIC and a MIPS GIC...), but I'm a bit
>> worried that we could end-up breaking things if one of us decides to
>> reorder it in enum cpuhp_state.
>> 
>> The safest option would be for you to add your own state value, which
>> would allow the two architecture to evolve independently.
>
> I had figured that if something like that ever happens it'd be easy to split
> into 2 states at that point, but sure - I'm happy to add a MIPS-specific state
> now to avoid anyone needing to worry about it.

That would be my preferred option.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny.