Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.35;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231025142820.390238-1-apatel@ventanamicro.com>
 <20231025142820.390238-2-apatel@ventanamicro.com> <87y1fo3383.ffs@tglx>
In-Reply-To: <87y1fo3383.ffs@tglx>
From:   Anup Patel <apatel@ventanamicro.com>
Date:   Fri, 27 Oct 2023 20:08:24 +0530
Message-ID: <CAK9=C2WC7N-9LgrtpfeWCT08iToqMevgvR0rkjEvdJFPzNDkMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] RISC-V: Don't fail in riscv_of_parent_hartid() for
 disabled HARTs
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        =?UTF-8?B?QmrDtnJuIFTDtnBlbA==?= <bjorn@kernel.org>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
        Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>,
        Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com>,
        Saravana Kannan <saravanak@google.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Atish Patra <atishp@rivosinc.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 1:29=E2=80=AFPM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de=
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 25 2023 at 19:58, Anup Patel wrote:
> > The riscv_of_processor_hartid() used by riscv_of_parent_hartid() fails
> > for HARTs disabled in the DT. This results in the following warning
> > thrown by the RISC-V INTC driver for the E-core on SiFive boards:
> >
> > [    0.000000] riscv-intc: unable to find hart id for /cpus/cpu@0/inter=
rupt-controller
> >
> > The riscv_of_parent_hartid() is only expected to read the hartid from
> > the DT so we should directly call of_get_cpu_hwid() instead of calling
>
> We should? Or maybe not?
>
> Please write precise changelogs and use imperative wording as documented
> in Documentation/process.

Sure, I will update the wording in the commit description.

Thanks,
Anup