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
