Re: [PATCH 3/3] irqchip/gic-v3: Remove Mediatek pseudo-NMI firmware quirk handling

[Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>]

On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 11:37:18AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2023-10-30 23:01, Doug Anderson wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 4:08 AM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 06, 2023 at 03:15:53PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > > > This is a partial revert of commit 44bd78dd2b88 ("irqchip/gic-v3:
> > > > Disable pseudo NMIs on Mediatek devices w/ firmware issues"). In the
> > > > patch ("arm64: Disable GiC priorities on Mediatek devices w/ firmware
> > > > issues") we've moved the quirk handling to another place and so it's
> > > > not needed in the GiC driver.
> > > >
> > > > NOTE: this isn't a full revert because it leaves some of the changes
> > > > to the "quirks" structure around in case future code needs it.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> > > > ---
> > > 
> > > I think it might make sense to fold this into the patch adding the
> > > cpucap
> > > detection. Otherwise, if you apply my suggestions to the first
> > > patch, there's a
> > > 2-commit window where we'll have two places that log that NMI is
> > > being disabled
> > > due to the FW issue. That's not a functional issue, so doesn't
> > > matter that
> > > much.
> > > 
> > > Either way:
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
> > 
> > I'm happy to go either way so I'd love some advice from maintainers
> > (Marc Zyngier, Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon) about what you'd prefer.
> 
> I honestly don't mind either way. The sooner we have these fixes
> upstream, the better, so my only advise would be to respin it
> shortly.

I agree. I can queue them for rc1 if they turn up in time.

-- 
Catalin