Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 Feb 2021 12:23:04 +0000 | From | Marc Zyngier <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/8] arm64: irq: add a default handle_irq panic function |
| |
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 12:06:14 +0000, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 11:43:13AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
[...]
> > As I said, it's not a big deal. I doubt that we'll see default_handle_irq() > > exploding in practice. But the real nit here is the difference of treatment > > between IRQ and FIQ. *IF* we ever get a system that only signals its > > interrupt as FIQ (and I don't see why we'd forbid that), then we would > > That's a fair point. > > For consistency, we could remove the init_IRQ() panic() and instead log > the registered handlers, e.g. > > | pr_info("Root IRQ handler is %ps\n", handle_arch_irq); > | pr_info("Root FIQ handler is %ps\n", handle_arch_fiq); > > ... or do that inside the set_handle_{irq,fiq}() functions. That way the > messages (or absence thereof) would be sufficient to diagnose the lack > of a root IRQ/FIQ handler when IRQ/FIQ happens to be quiescent. > > Does that sound any better?
Yup, I quite like the second variant (using set_handle_{irq,fiq}()).
Thanks,
M.
-- Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
| |