On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:28:30PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, Aug 25 2020 at 15:07, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > >> + * The arch hooks to setup up msi irqs. Default functions are implemented > >> + * as weak symbols so that they /can/ be overriden by architecture specific > >> + * code if needed. > >> + * > >> + * They can be replaced by stubs with warnings via > >> + * CONFIG_PCI_MSI_DISABLE_ARCH_FALLBACKS when the architecture fully > >> + * utilizes direct irqdomain based setup. > > If not, it seems like it'd be nicer to have the burden on the arches > > that need/want to use arch-specific code instead of on the arches that > > do things generically. > > Right, but they still share the common code there and some of them > provide only parts of the weak callbacks. I'm not sure whether it's a > good idea to copy all of this into each affected architecture. > > Or did you just mean that those architectures should select > CONFIG_I_WANT_THE CRUFT instead of opting out on the fully irq domain > based ones? Yes, that was my real question -- can we confine the cruft in the crufty arches? If not, no big deal. Bjorn
