Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.38 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.38;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231006151547.1.Ide945748593cffd8ff0feb9ae22b795935b944d6@changeid>
 <20231006151547.3.Ie582d33cfe46f9ec2248e7f2dabdd6bbd66486a6@changeid> <ZS-8k22ZWgn5hcCd@FVFF77S0Q05N>
In-Reply-To: <ZS-8k22ZWgn5hcCd@FVFF77S0Q05N>
From:   Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date:   Mon, 30 Oct 2023 16:01:54 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=UVkE9k=o3-3UT2L172hhAH-gtpe5ByELN8srC+a-7mJw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] irqchip/gic-v3: Remove Mediatek pseudo-NMI firmware
 quirk handling
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Chen-Yu Tsai <wenst@chromium.org>,
        AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
        <angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>,
        Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 4:08=E2=80=AFAM Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>=
 wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 06, 2023 at 03:15:53PM -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> > This is a partial revert of commit 44bd78dd2b88 ("irqchip/gic-v3:
> > Disable pseudo NMIs on Mediatek devices w/ firmware issues"). In the
> > patch ("arm64: Disable GiC priorities on Mediatek devices w/ firmware
> > issues") we've moved the quirk handling to another place and so it's
> > not needed in the GiC driver.
> >
> > NOTE: this isn't a full revert because it leaves some of the changes
> > to the "quirks" structure around in case future code needs it.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> > ---
>
> I think it might make sense to fold this into the patch adding the cpucap
> detection. Otherwise, if you apply my suggestions to the first patch, the=
re's a
> 2-commit window where we'll have two places that log that NMI is being di=
sabled
> due to the FW issue. That's not a functional issue, so doesn't matter tha=
t
> much.
>
> Either way:
>
> Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>

I'm happy to go either way so I'd love some advice from maintainers
(Marc Zyngier, Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon) about what you'd prefer.

-Doug