From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51E3853AC; Sun, 23 Mar 2025 17:56:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742752609; cv=none; b=RW093/hv47wAWtbaU6+FznpuhiDvux8fSk3qHWas7xbGDGLWyzVuqmT89uFj7bmU3YLT+LTK8ZX3JlzTiWjqRAFMYWtXtjlllfLIcy12ZMSiEL6G7uBvLb5UH+/s6zKg30lLw21+nxumOKb4zF+MpEBzlDVVu7v16qebCAiIv9k= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742752609; c=relaxed/simple; bh=KVf36YralWdv1yn+YqWFleHtYGS7OetRESKY/2lYMqA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=CcmFLyAIIOMTZhSo83ujMZ6KfTD5diT7XF2aJL5k1KA355yekPVFdj6VbGIIN4kzUFypFKZnETiKl6KEdyJVhaZqmyxGzCo9H5E6IXBN7kxR+5+YwoW9XCOJXuckPZ+Bg72rD/mr4zwv0susTnFLOU+yfPVqsZ1MSSpE/scEwzI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=y87jEWOY; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=EDjk09+/; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="y87jEWOY"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="EDjk09+/" From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1742752606; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ybbVEqQyi4LCnvj4QmAykSpUgiX8fgqqKRGS630vjfo=; b=y87jEWOYX4464VeoruYLaAPU0k/JzrSZc4nr7DcxkgC9nirArTyPxeyn0IQRV5MKfRpiz8 j3ADuPA88mlbXhpawYzlNDXX0RZQwIbAFKfH7Td64JsgvIwAN5yL4LUV/kG0ZmU2t4ikVS ooSRXk+kSSmuz1304nczVLoCmP4Faf0pkbtCf63X/GiJPxps2rfyxwY1Iqtz2kUW/L1OhF cyfpuBY87JMXgtOy6FX5w6IsQBG7TLAO4S0CaASwZQknZBs6NsrB9x5NI87FvXCu3CfOHM Hy63du7RWi2S8nTtde2uxkwhGVjZpKHHvQL78BSWnn4NnZsxKycoJS3YkUp8sw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1742752606; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ybbVEqQyi4LCnvj4QmAykSpUgiX8fgqqKRGS630vjfo=; b=EDjk09+/OtprWxZE4lAWSMMaI/bHuRBpN5/G4UE2i+WNOxMDc/s/GBUC2s1KD1L8ykPq1m sU+RAGmbQq9BfWBg== To: Caleb James DeLisle , linux-mips@vger.kernel.org Cc: Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Thomas Bogendoerfer , Daniel Lezcano , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, benjamin.larsson@genexis.eu Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 3/8] irqchip: Add EcoNet EN751221 INTC In-Reply-To: <7307e611-1cc6-425e-a066-478794878d8e@cjdns.fr> References: <20250321134633.2155141-1-cjd@cjdns.fr> <20250321134633.2155141-4-cjd@cjdns.fr> <87tt7m1664.ffs@tglx> <87bjtt1nod.ffs@tglx> <7307e611-1cc6-425e-a066-478794878d8e@cjdns.fr> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2025 18:56:45 +0100 Message-ID: <8734f31vhe.ffs@tglx> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-mips@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Sun, Mar 23 2025 at 04:06, Caleb James DeLisle wrote: > So it's my belief that what I'm doing here is standard for 34Kc. > > The reason I asked the question in the beginning was because I wanted > to check my assumptions and know if there's any way I can get SMP > without writing this dispatcher. Fair enough. If it just works as is then I don't have any objections and the question vs. SMP has to answered by the MIPS wizards. >>>> So this patch clearly should have been tagged with 'RFC'. >>> Given the patchset works correctly in testing, does this comment >>> stand? >> Until the EI/VI issue is resolved so that it either works or cannot >> happen. > > All said, if "depends on !EI && !VI" makes you happy then I'm OK to add it. It's not about making me happy. I just want to avoid a situation where this causes hard to diagnose issues. > Just what I'm afraid of is being asked to find an authoritative answer to my > question before merging, because if nobody decides to jump in with one > then this could just be blocked indefinitely. Nah. If it works the way you implemented it and you can arguably exclude EI/VI interaction, then there is no reason to delay anything. Thanks, tglx