On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Grant Likely <grant.lik...@secretlab.ca> wrote:
>> + if (irq_base < 0) {
>> + WARN(1, "Cannot allocate irq_descs @ IRQ%d,
>> assuming pre-allocated\n",
>> + first_irq);
>> + irq_base = first_irq;
>
> As I just commented on the previous version, WARN() is probably too
> verbose (and scary). Make it an informational.
So the discussion began with me removing exactly that kind of WARN()
from arch/arm/common/gic.c:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=134860088710574&w=2
Which was NACKed by Rob:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-arm-kernel&m=134860136515611&w=2
Who prefered to leave it in to encourage platforms to get fixed.
This code just follows exactly that pattern.
I'm happy to patch out *both* (or rather patch gic.c to use
irq_domain_add_simple()) because I never quite liked
it in the first place.
> However, I see another problem. What is the requested range straddles
> the boundary between reserved and non-reserved IRQs? It would be good to
> give some information about which irq range was requested and maybe
> report which ones were available.... or check to see if the request is
> inside or partially inside the reserved region?
Right now the usual symptom of that is that the system hangs.
Do you mean we should probe around a bit with
irq_get_next_irq() to figure out more precisely what the
problem is, or did you have something more elegant
in mind?
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
