On 2/9/22 6:18 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 4:11 PM Sergei Shtylyov
> <sergei.shtylyov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 2/8/22 3:31 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>>>> I might have missed something, but it seems the only user of IRQ 0 on
>>>>> SuperH is smsc911x Ethernet in arch/sh/boards/board-apsh4a3a.c and
>>>>> arch/sh/boards/board-apsh4ad0a.c, which use evt2irq(0x200).
>>>>> These should have been seeing the "0 is an invalid IRQ number"
>>>>> warning splat since it was introduced in commit a85a6c86c25be2d2
>>>>> ("driver core: platform: Clarify that IRQ 0 is invalid"). Or not:
>>>>
>>>> Warning or no warning, 0 is still returned. :-/
>>>> My attempt to put an end to this has stuck waiting a review from the IRQ
>>>> people...
>>>
>>> I had another look at this after you asked about it on IRC. I don't
>>> know much SH assembly, but I suspect IRQ 0 has not been delivered
Neither do I, sigh...
I do know the instuctions are 16-bit and so there are no immediate
opperands... :-)
>>> since 2009 after 1e1030dccb10 ("sh: nmi_debug support."). On a
>>
>> Mhm... this commit changes the SH3 code while SH778x are SH4A, no?
>
> This code is shared between both:
>
> arch/sh/kernel/cpu/sh4/Makefile:common-y += $(addprefix
> ../sh3/, entry.o ex.o)
Ah, quite convoluted! :-)
So you mean thet broke the delivery of EVT 0x200 when mucking with NMI?
> Arnd
MBR, Sergey
