[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1603171550200.3978@nanos>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 15:51:35 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
cc: Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
BenoƮt Cousson <bcousson@...libre.com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...nel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/15] irqchip/gic: WARN if setting the interrupt type
fails
On Thu, 17 Mar 2016, Jon Hunter wrote:
> Setting the interrupt type for private peripheral interrupts (PPIs) may
> not be supported by a given GIC because it is IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED
> whether this is allowed. There is no way to know if setting the type is
> supported for a given GIC and so the value written is read back to
> verify it matches the desired configuration. If it does not match then
> an error is return.
>
> There are cases where the interrupt configuration read from firmware
> (such as a device-tree blob), has been incorrect and hence
> gic_configure_irq() has returned an error. This error has gone
> undetected because the error code returned was ignored but the interrupt
> still worked fine because the configuration for the interrupt could not
> be overwritten.
>
> Given that this has done undetected and we should only fail to set the
> type for PPIs whose configuration cannot be changed anyway, don't return
> an error and simply WARN if this fails. This will allows us to fix up any
> places in the kernel where we should be checking the return status and
> maintain back compatibility with firmware images that may have incorrect
> interrupt configurations.
Though silently returning 0 is really the wrong thing to do. You can add the
warn, but why do you want to return success?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists