Date:   Mon, 13 Feb 2023 20:55:07 +0530
From:   Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com>
To:     Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
Cc:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        Anup Patel <apatel@ventanamicro.com>,
        Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@rivosinc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/24] RISC-V: ACPI: irqchip/riscv-intc: Add ACPI support
Message-ID: <Y+pWU+799GSUsGDP@sunil-laptop>
References: <20230130182225.2471414-1-sunilvl@ventanamicro.com>
 <20230130182225.2471414-12-sunilvl@ventanamicro.com>
 <Y+QY9DCf6JPBNVS7@spud>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Y+QY9DCf6JPBNVS7@spud>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Feb 08, 2023 at 09:49:40PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> Hey Sunil,
> 
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 11:52:12PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote:
> > Add support for initializing the RISC-V INTC driver on ACPI based
> > platforms.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com>
> 
> > +static int __init
> > +riscv_intc_acpi_init(union acpi_subtable_headers *header,
> > +		     const unsigned long end)
> > +{
> > +	int rc;
> > +	struct fwnode_handle *fn;
> > +	struct acpi_madt_rintc *rintc;
> > +
> > +	rintc = (struct acpi_madt_rintc *)header;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * The ACPI MADT will have one INTC for each CPU (or HART)
> > +	 * so riscv_intc_acpi_init() function will be called once
> > +	 * for each INTC. We only need to do INTC initialization
> > +	 * for the INTC belonging to the boot CPU (or boot HART).
> > +	 */
> > +	if (riscv_hartid_to_cpuid(rintc->hart_id) != smp_processor_id())
> > +		return 0;
> > +
> > +	fn = irq_domain_alloc_named_fwnode("RISCV-INTC");
> > +	WARN_ON(fn == NULL);
> 
> Is there a reason that you do not just check this as !fn?
> 
> > +	if (!fn) {
> 
> This is a repeated check from the WARN_ON(), no?
> 
> > +		pr_err("unable to allocate INTC FW node\n");
> 
> Why do you need a WARN_ON() & the pr_err() here?
> 
You are right. Will remove the WARN_ON.

> > +		return -1;
> 
> Why not an actual ERRNO?
>
Okay. 

Thanks,
Sunil