[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87v7r7ygq0.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2025 21:00:23 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
asahi@...ts.linux.dev, Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@...enzweig.io>, Janne
Grunau <j@...nau.net>, Hector Martin <marcan@...can.st>, Sven Peter
<sven@...npeter.dev>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>, Lorenzo
Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>, Krzysztof WilczyĆski
<kw@...ux.com>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@...all.nl>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 01/13] PCI: apple: Set only available ports up
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025 17:57:35 +0100,
Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 10:17:01AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > From: Janne Grunau <j@...nau.net>
> >
> > Iterating over disabled ports results in of_irq_parse_raw() parsing
> > the wrong "interrupt-map" entries, as it takes the status of the node
>
> 'as it doesn't take account'?
>
> > into account.
No, I really mean it in the positive form. of_irq_parse_raw() checks
of_device_is_available(), and gets really confused if walking from a
disabled port. You end up with the interrupt for the next *available*
port, and everything goes pear shaped from then onwards.
So IMO "as it takes into account" describes pretty accurately the
situation.
M.
--
Jazz isn't dead. It just smells funny.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists