Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:8c0a:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id go10csp1502390pxb; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 03:46:47 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyjArRW7IJUfOTA4rv7OaREk5/YCKpKZqowNGLcVIdlGQhr25oxj+iK7MAb0ARwETUqPrgQ X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:78d:: with SMTP id d13mr4701352edy.253.1613994407614; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 03:46:47 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1613994407; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=azFbe8Tfq88RWF0/K80nAVGkcmjiHGfji+/pEqnfcLToHYWcDtXm359XFrc4lE/F0u zU6tszuWPWAjmFvmr2CRPiqLUxCuLFZkAqpLilYAZJpEUrbYFC4tt5AbP8ixeSxApVHx wKX508cWadMptKpg6UM+GwVLT1H4Y3aRSq01pPFSWgBWZhcM1RC4D9pD/3luZsrPrQFq +sNbP9/g2bIdG8wjUWtot7imVf6abV4vAzJSsfDw9uJD6jqIA72sUNmAOZbT4azARKi4 gp2DAhZv1rROqzZYUPtr0G4Q67xP6GU8eZPs2ug1OorELoi2b0xXxV/CP8FYRsTjddga mM4g== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:message-id:user-agent:references:in-reply-to :subject:cc:to:from:date:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=fT/HCBwMKMAxkiD/WxRNPcJEd/LtokcHwFL/OP842gg=; b=NRTlDlDiCrQFq2iyVVm+B+VfrryVCXKmpeqwR5MjCAQuFF9hQoEJQN2UYK2hDA0IE8 McWK+OjBDr4z9RKYL2c0A7N9W6r91//sDzMweUREiMq7paxL2hq8Dn8xFCUJhYnvBOLw Yqd1UqaiNwsjmq4OhGxnvrsYtY1W06UYy18+R6Kxy2xz80gbdtrsNNKCGTlmWFk7Xxf9 SaowPFwunbLj0DgWUtsruQeeHOakDZAmk95JKe2LuC/fprNz2CMEn3KoClKNcZD1Lk0o s0fZqVvU3WPXdmCVxAETGP8za0fCdD7VW8T959oTN2yQXzV/Send0Wz6hMa/GmQX/MXH uvqA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id j10si14656882ejs.186.2021.02.22.03.46.24; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 03:46:47 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230014AbhBVLoA (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 22 Feb 2021 06:44:00 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:40388 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229947AbhBVLn7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Feb 2021 06:43:59 -0500 Received: from disco-boy.misterjones.org (disco-boy.misterjones.org [51.254.78.96]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B1F3764ED6; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 11:43:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from disco-boy.misterjones.org ([51.254.78.96] helo=www.loen.fr) by disco-boy.misterjones.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.94) (envelope-from ) id 1lE9cP-00FJBa-Ih; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 11:43:13 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 11:43:13 +0000 From: Marc Zyngier To: Mark Rutland Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, james.morse@arm.com, marcan@marcan.st, tglx@linutronix.de, will@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] arm64: irq: add a default handle_irq panic function In-Reply-To: <20210222112544.GB70951@C02TD0UTHF1T.local> References: <20210219113904.41736-1-mark.rutland@arm.com> <20210219113904.41736-6-mark.rutland@arm.com> <20210222095913.GA70951@C02TD0UTHF1T.local> <1d2c27d72b9b2cbdb83d25165a20559a@kernel.org> <20210222112544.GB70951@C02TD0UTHF1T.local> User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.4.11 Message-ID: <2e6a9659eabcccb355318ff7214c8d1f@kernel.org> X-Sender: maz@kernel.org X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 51.254.78.96 X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: mark.rutland@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, james.morse@arm.com, marcan@marcan.st, tglx@linutronix.de, will@kernel.org X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: maz@kernel.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on disco-boy.misterjones.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2021-02-22 11:25, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 10:48:11AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> On 2021-02-22 09:59, Mark Rutland wrote: >> > On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 11:39:01AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: >> > > +void (*handle_arch_irq)(struct pt_regs *) __ro_after_init = >> > > default_handle_irq; >> > > >> > > int __init set_handle_irq(void (*handle_irq)(struct pt_regs *)) >> > > { >> > > - if (handle_arch_irq) >> > > + if (handle_arch_irq != default_handle_irq) >> > > return -EBUSY; >> > > >> > > handle_arch_irq = handle_irq; >> > > @@ -87,7 +92,7 @@ void __init init_IRQ(void) >> > > init_irq_stacks(); >> > > init_irq_scs(); >> > > irqchip_init(); >> > > - if (!handle_arch_irq) >> > > + if (handle_arch_irq == default_handle_irq) >> > > panic("No interrupt controller found."); >> >> It also seems odd to have both default_handle_irq() that panics, >> and init_IRQ that panics as well. Not a big deal, but maybe >> we should just drop this altogether and get the firework on the >> first interrupt. > > My gut feeling was that both were useful, and served slightly different > cases: > > * The panic in default_handle_irq() helps if we unexpectedly unmask IRQ > too early. This is mostly a nicety over the current behaviour of > branching to NULL in this case. > > * The panic in init_IRQ() gives us a consistent point at which we can > note the absence of a root IRQ controller even if all IRQs are > quiescent. This is a bit nicer to debug than seeing a load of driver > probes fail their request_irq() or whatever. > > ... so I'd err on the side of keeping both, but if you think otherwise > I'm happy to change this. 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 To be clear, I don't think we should care too much either way, and I'm fine with the code as is. M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...