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 E5885182D3 for ; Fri, 8 Aug 2025 04:52:57 +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=1754628779; cv=none; b=uMccJJR0nKtovaiWjArsU4jRvQCGGkjOT+N0pzhPn1wPJaq0Yw8BePa1IwiWcq2JR24XYUgYKnlsbvJs1tazxSXK2IL5zKr8nDtOHtMSlUeLtdDPewuQ1yhs//9HI1BGQoQhRv5308wMK0ugd9jnwKi1x6fULAmDLFTxpRFsQgM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754628779; c=relaxed/simple; bh=JDnGGV7dC2AbZvKaXgtHgt5QXxVMQtVIKS4qBQaA58U=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Y62m6BEMcvyWbyamnClpsuzLxsNK32zGx3h0Qt06+6v8h6Nikw8x0L93iAWJuU3KFNdjCwfIY/KTqDtnWwp3Uf4dzu/B2yV24V0XnPRm+fzZ/qEQ3GvjbKOLYkfGkxGewubSdvfrbwjBMRbwgbwJc6QRP33YynpzkGx+NYGNWgw= 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=NmPqKo5E; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=dkxkoec8; 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="NmPqKo5E"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="dkxkoec8" From: Nam Cao DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1754628775; 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=JDnGGV7dC2AbZvKaXgtHgt5QXxVMQtVIKS4qBQaA58U=; b=NmPqKo5Ev007ZLd0iXzzv3TkeqjjsCFihzHkopauv4t9+m/nH8+JJAS8yNg1IuT2+euAJS rK6UdMm7t7wERSUaxCWxw5And+7rzwO92iNZaWOFRvT+1zxy/0wDnXJCXNV6m54wgvqeUB 0YZCRPERBzmL77gHpgF5VDgStd3vhSzmaSRbJ+42ScFXiDGj4CBJb8QE+9zpnzBnphj8RP VTkc+ESbnTnEn+cZDlwKvaSkmGcCz848zsMei0IMxtVsICs9PwplBgv/wY1vrr+ZkiF3EL F+eeVdbhcVNjCai1G4Seh5/opYwo3Jkg4vSGfhAo8c5V3cabgBEkcj1AsVgA4A== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1754628775; 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=JDnGGV7dC2AbZvKaXgtHgt5QXxVMQtVIKS4qBQaA58U=; b=dkxkoec8BEhRpTO14mVCPGwylv4H2TKn5yquJUDsjdM4wRUJRjAnQ2McQhBT92uGYwQbWF QsF+WmM0EpQ3WRAA== To: Inochi Amaoto , Inochi Amaoto , Thomas Gleixner , Paul Walmsley , Samuel Holland Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, Yixun Lan , Longbin Li Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip/sifive-plic: Respect mask state when setting affinity In-Reply-To: References: <20250807111806.741706-1-inochiama@gmail.com> <87fre3mhkh.fsf@yellow.woof> Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2025 06:52:42 +0200 Message-ID: <87qzxmpg85.fsf@yellow.woof> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Inochi Amaoto writes: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2025 at 06:01:39AM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote: > After some dig in, I found it is not very necessary to add this, > When all enable bit is clear, the PRIORIT register of irq is > not functional, so only umask the irq does not make sense. Only > calling irq_enable does enable the irq. Yeah, I contemplated doing this myself when I added the unmask to plic_irq_enable(), because it looks more natural that plic_irq_enable() and plic_irq_disable() are opposite. But I don't think it is necessary. > I prefer to add a comment to describe this behavior, instead of > adding this change in a separate patch. No preference from me. Nam