[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87ft1o1ec7.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 12:23:04 +0000
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
catalin.marinas@....com, james.morse@....com, marcan@...can.st,
tglx@...utronix.de, will@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] arm64: irq: add a default handle_irq panic function
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 12:06:14 +0000,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:43:13AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
[...]
> > As I said, it's not a big deal. I doubt that we'll see default_handle_irq()
> > exploding in practice. But the real nit here is the difference of treatment
> > between IRQ and FIQ. *IF* we ever get a system that only signals its
> > interrupt as FIQ (and I don't see why we'd forbid that), then we would
>
> That's a fair point.
>
> For consistency, we could remove the init_IRQ() panic() and instead log
> the registered handlers, e.g.
>
> | pr_info("Root IRQ handler is %ps\n", handle_arch_irq);
> | pr_info("Root FIQ handler is %ps\n", handle_arch_fiq);
>
> ... or do that inside the set_handle_{irq,fiq}() functions. That way the
> messages (or absence thereof) would be sufficient to diagnose the lack
> of a root IRQ/FIQ handler when IRQ/FIQ happens to be quiescent.
>
> Does that sound any better?
Yup, I quite like the second variant (using set_handle_{irq,fiq}()).
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists