Received: by 2002:a05:6a11:4021:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id ky33csp2744977pxb; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 06:49:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx2e85JMLOBGNWYbQMLlPR8r+a0PETV7KoY1m3cpqIltFE6Z1GdiazEM/Mr5CuJLZ5HZeAZ X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:48e:: with SMTP id f14mr30906867eja.433.1632232170830; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 06:49:30 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1632232170; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=pL/xqlUVAyMQy7jDQmGuK2gNqITTn+qdFZ4Vb1oy1cMVvOCKOOSK9TWfGsOkcUeXEV dFi4qGCUImbXvp+lovfB1mMVUdCx8lINiVj/sOBZPyfrs2BTh0sXJ2KeYQlQK55b3Xn2 cX3Vzl9b69D3MatTrvHVcdJqzCrm9PB63f9W6o56+zDQEZzi7oeToow2MAWuYLrV7+ud xnzLSMe06mabGtL8IflJhO+v2Hr1KHSkKl1JZw9Zv0vq9vgcZneojnCPcoBhfijcx+vR l86krDgcz6/RlWyzjvxWkXFjaYu1i8RvqNCCTRR/KnUeP9KJdxYSaPeEQYMBpYm7sKSG 9yQg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version :references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=a1EZFPkJDOLYraJq2/HGxj4E/h0ar4x1Dm+9eKb1k/4=; b=Soj8hnsHd1SsvKE/3A4PXST72N1ulUmthprWlbok5g1MPdySYjvDAeU6hqRMahPR1u BB7ntzpnLxvAPzE2HdibE2/0KN0wJTmcgtFkGA0sFRp8DTfZO8PTB5dDv3bVdzYj9hGB HJW2QZBgYHkTs0mdizNJja9wKRY77qaZA0n6neqLNzzLGlTGeS2HZxGWIZqIx5WQ0+OH xyYgyWBKjsoENngIw1C3/+iCT2CgKUrAmzyr6W01DBu9I7I4dPHa27U9eG9yq63xamQ3 El4brqCUaFprQeuMFPTqAlbReSROc7Qfslbzz5NXZ3FIq9gkgUtGvskw7v7Jy5J05YS7 bSow== 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=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id q1si19375381ejr.43.2021.09.21.06.48.49; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 06:49:30 -0700 (PDT) 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=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233236AbhIUNsy (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 21 Sep 2021 09:48:54 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:32842 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233218AbhIUNsv (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Sep 2021 09:48:51 -0400 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D81D0610E8; Tue, 21 Sep 2021 13:47:21 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2021 14:47:18 +0100 From: Catalin Marinas To: Yajun Deng Cc: will@kernel.org, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH linux-next v2] arm64: PCI: Introduce pcibios_free_irq() helper function Message-ID: References: <20210826060406.12571-1-yajun.deng@linux.dev> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210826060406.12571-1-yajun.deng@linux.dev> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 02:04:06PM +0800, Yajun Deng wrote: > pcibios_alloc_irq() will be called in pci_device_probe(), but there > hasn't pcibios_free_irq() in arm64 architecture correspond it. > pcibios_free_irq() is an empty weak function in drivers/pci/pci-driver.c. > So add pcibios_free_irq() for correspond it. This will be called > in pci_device_remove(). > > ==================== > v2: remove the change in pcibios_alloc_irq(), and modify the commit log. > ==================== > > Signed-off-by: Yajun Deng > --- > arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c > index 2276689b5411..6ffd92126f65 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/pci.c > @@ -29,6 +29,13 @@ int pcibios_alloc_irq(struct pci_dev *dev) > > return 0; > } > + > +void pcibios_free_irq(struct pci_dev *dev) > +{ > + if (!acpi_disabled) > + acpi_pci_irq_disable(dev); > +} For symmetry with the alloc path, this looks fine but I'd like Lorenzo to confirm. The other questions, what does it fix and do we need a cc stable? Thanks. -- Catalin