Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:24:12 -0600 | From | Rob Herring <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/4 v2] irqdomain: augment add_simple() to allocate descs |
| |
On 11/26/2012 06:13 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:26 PM, Grant Likely <grant.likely@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?
My objection was removing completely (which a pr_debug effectively does). I think Grant is saying just make the warning more informative about why it failed which is fine with me. nr_irqs is already printed out, so that provides some info already (although it is pretty terse).
Rob
| |