On Mon, Oct 30 2017 at 9:36:16 am GMT, Paul Burton <paul.burton@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. That would be my preferred option. Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny.
