From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753108AbdJaBfI (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:35:08 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:58630 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751561AbdJaBfH (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Oct 2017 21:35:07 -0400 From: Marc Zyngier To: Paul Burton Cc: Jason Cooper , Thomas Gleixner , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] irqchip: mips-gic: Use irq_cpu_online to (un)mask all-VP(E) IRQs In-Reply-To: <20171030163616.tsti7thormxlnxuo@pburton-laptop> (Paul Burton's message of "Mon, 30 Oct 2017 09:36:16 -0700") Organization: ARM Ltd References: <20171025233730.22225-1-paul.burton@mips.com> <20171025233730.22225-3-paul.burton@mips.com> <86mv495alz.fsf@arm.com> <20171030163616.tsti7thormxlnxuo@pburton-laptop> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 01:35:02 +0000 Message-ID: <867evc5cc9.fsf@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 30 2017 at 9:36:16 am GMT, Paul Burton 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.