Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 12 Jan 2023 14:24:57 +0100
From:   Johan Hovold <johan@kernel.org>
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Hector Martin <marcan@marcan.st>,
        Sven Peter <sven@svenpeter.dev>,
        Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>,
        Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@bootlin.com>,
        Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>,
        Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>,
        Broadcom internal kernel review list 
        <bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com>,
        Ray Jui <rjui@broadcom.com>,
        Scott Branden <sbranden@broadcom.com>, asahi@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] genirq/irqdomain/msi: Add
 irq_domain_alloc_irqs_affinity() wrapper
Message-ID: <Y8AKKVs9vAFR+F6H@hovoldconsulting.com>
References: <20221213140844.15470-1-johan+linaro@kernel.org>
 <20221213140844.15470-3-johan+linaro@kernel.org>
 <87358ggayt.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87358ggayt.ffs@tglx>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 07:52:42PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13 2022 at 15:08, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > The full __irq_domain_alloc_irqs() interface was initially only intended
> > for some legacy (x86) use cases while most callers should use the
> > irq_domain_alloc_irqs() wrapper.
> >
> > Add a matching irq_domain_alloc_irqs_affinity() wrapper that can be used
> > when an affinity hint needs to be provided and use it for MSI
> > allocations.
> 
> I definitely like the irqchip cleanup, but this one is core code and
> having the extra wrapper is not really buying us much.

Fair enough. If you don't expect there to be any further users then
perhaps it's not worth it even if it arguably makes the call site a bit
more readable (e.g. by dropping the base and realloc arguments).

Johan