On 30.04.2025 17:34, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>
> On 4/17/25 12:11 PM, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/15/25 5:59 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 08.04.2025 17:57, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
>>>> Call intc_init() to do basic initialization steps for APLIC and IMISC.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Oleksii Kurochko<oleksii.kuroc...@gmail.com>
>>> Acked-by: Jan Beulich<jbeul...@suse.com>
>>> yet ...
>>>
>>>> --- a/xen/arch/riscv/setup.c
>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/riscv/setup.c
>>>> @@ -136,6 +136,8 @@ void __init noreturn start_xen(unsigned long
>>>> bootcpu_id,
>>>>
>>>> intc_preinit();
>>>>
>>>> + intc_init();
>>>> +
>>>> printk("All set up\n");
>>>>
>>>> machine_halt();
>>> ... this being everything here I wonder if this can't be folded with the
>>> patch where the function is introduced.
>> Sure, it can be folded. I will do that to reduce patch series.
>
> I doubled checked and, at the moment, when intc_init() is introduced:
> void __init intc_init(void)
> {
> ASSERT(intc_hw_ops);
>
> if ( intc_hw_ops->init() )
> panic("Failed to initialize the interrupt controller drivers\n");
> }
>
> intc_hw_ops isn't registered as they are registered in the next two patches
> after
> intriduction of intc_hw_ops.
Which then feels wrong anyway; you're then merely leveraging that the function
has no caller, which (as said elsewhere) shouldn't be the case at the very least
for Misra's sake. So I expect some re-ordering to be necessary. Or you may want
to introduce the function empty and add the intc_hw_ops uses as intc_hw_ops is
introduced.
Jan
