Hi Marc, On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 08:00:08AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > static int __init gic_of_init(struct device_node *node, > > struct device_node *parent) > > @@ -768,6 +806,8 @@ static int __init gic_of_init(struct device_node *node, > > } > > } > > > > - return 0; > > + return cpuhp_setup_state(CPUHP_AP_IRQ_GIC_STARTING, > > + "irqchip/mips/gic:starting", > > + gic_cpu_startup, NULL); > > I'm wondering about this. CPUHP_AP_IRQ_GIC_STARTING is a symbol that is > used on ARM platforms. You're very welcome to use it (as long as nobody > builds a system with both an ARM GIC and a MIPS GIC...), but I'm a bit > worried that we could end-up breaking things if one of us decides to > reorder it in enum cpuhp_state. > > The safest option would be for you to add your own state value, which > would allow the two architecture to evolve independently. I had figured that if something like that ever happens it'd be easy to split into 2 states at that point, but sure - I'm happy to add a MIPS-specific state now to avoid anyone needing to worry about it. Thanks, Paul