From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH] of/irq: improve error message on irq discovery process failure Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2016 08:30:43 +1100 Message-ID: <1478813443.2592.2.camel@au1.ibm.com> References: <1478700308-25481-1-git-send-email-gpiccoli@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20161109190457.GC837@leverpostej> Reply-To: benh@au1.ibm.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20161109190457.GC837@leverpostej> Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Rutland , "Guilherme G. Piccoli" Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, marc.zyngier@arm.com, frowand.list@gmail.com, robh+dt@kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 19:04 +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > If we don't have an interrupt-map on a PCI controller, why don't we > instead log a message regarding that being missing, and give up > early? Why ? It's legit to not support LSIs. > That sounds like a more generically useful error message; it's also > possible that a DT author simply forgot to add the map, and the > platform has suitable interrupts wired up. But it's not necessarily an error... > > This patch introduces a different message for this specific case, > > and it also reduces the level of the message from error to warning. > > Before this patch, when an adapter was plugged in a slot without > Level > > interrupts capabilities, we saw generic error messages like this: > >  > >     [54.239] pci 002d:70:00.0: of_irq_parse_pci() failed with rc=- > 22 > >  > > Now, with this applied, we see the following specific message: > >  > >     [19.947] pci 0014:60:00.0: of_irq_parse_pci() gave up. The slot > of this > >     device has no Level-triggered Interrupts capability. > > Following my above example, this has gone from opaque to potentially > misleading I'm not sure. At least for some of our platforms this is the correct message :-) Our Hypervisor doesn't allow LSIs on some slots. I think it's not that misleading. It's obvious something is wrong with LSIs, which you can easily figure out from there. Cheers, Ben.