From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from Galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [IPv6:2001:470:1f0b:db:abcd:42:0:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A03E2C008A for ; Wed, 2 Oct 2013 02:32:24 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <524AF913.6020007@linutronix.de> Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 18:32:19 +0200 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Wolfram Sang Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "powerpc: 52xx: provide a default in mpc52xx_irqhost_map()" References: <1380612366-13504-1-git-send-email-wsa@the-dreams.de> <524A7FCB.3020406@linutronix.de> <20131001091115.GB2993@katana> In-Reply-To: <20131001091115.GB2993@katana> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Anatolij Gustschin , linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 10/01/2013 11:11 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote: > Hi, Hi Wolfram, > Well, if you insist, I'd prefer the following patch. > > From: Wolfram Sang Subject: [PATCH] ppc: > mpc52xx: silence false positive from old GCC > > So people can compile with -Werror (RT patchset). Why do you mention the RT patch set here? Doesn't the vanila tree gets compiled with -Werror as well? > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang --- > arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_pic.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, > 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_pic.c > b/arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_pic.c index b89ef65..ad3c9b0 > 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_pic.c +++ > b/arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_pic.c @@ -340,7 +340,7 @@ > static int mpc52xx_irqhost_map(struct irq_domain *h, unsigned int > virq, { int l1irq; int l2irq; - struct irq_chip *irqchip; + struct > irq_chip *irqchip = NULL; /* pet old compilers */ That would probably work, too. I would drop that comment but then someone might clean that up :P > void *hndlr; int type; u32 reg; > >> Why miss leading code? Default here does the same as unhandled >> and crit where it does nothing. > > People not realizing 'default' is a no-op might wonder why unknown > levels are mapped to critical. I see. And what would you suggest as default in case we would have an additional bit? > >> Any why do you want to see l2irq since it was not in the case >> statement? l2 holds the number, l1 the level. > > We know which level it was, since the printout is only for that > level. We probably want to know which requested IRQ was causing > this, so we can fix the assorted driver. Otherwise we only know > that some critical IRQ was requested somewhere. Hmmm. I assumed that critical / SDMA / … are interrupt numbers but they are seem not be. In that case I guess l2 is more important. l1 kinda looks important since it is the value in the switch case which failed but since it can only hold one possible value, I guess your info is better :) > > Thanks, > > Wolfram > Sebastian