Nitesh,
On Thu, May 20 2021 at 20:03, Nitesh Lal wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 5:57 PM Nitesh Lal <nilal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I think here to ensure that we are not breaking any of the drivers we have
>> to first analyze all the existing drivers and understand how they are using
>> this API.
>> AFAIK there are three possible scenarios:
>>
>> - A driver use this API to spread the IRQs
>> + For this case we should be safe considering the spreading is naturally
>> done from the IRQ subsystem itself.
>
> Forgot to mention another thing in the above case is to determine whether
> it is true for all architectures or not as Thomas mentioned.
Yes.
>>
>> - A driver use this API to actually set the hint
>> + These drivers should have no functional impact because of this revert
Correct.
>> - Driver use this API to force a certain affinity mask
>> + In this case we have to replace the API with the irq_force_affinity()
irq_set_affinity() or irq_set_affinity_and_hint()
>> I can start looking into the individual drivers, however, testing them will
>> be a challenge.
The only way to do that is to have the core infrastructure added and
then send patches changing it in the way you think. The relevant
maintainers/developers should be able to tell you when your analysis
went south. :)
Been there, done that. It's just lots of work :)
Thanks,
tglx
