Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] genirq/irqdomain: Allow partial trimming of irq_data hierarchy

[Marc Zyngier]

On 2020-10-07 09:53, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 2020-10-07 09:05, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On 2020-10-06 21:39, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

[...]

> > > This is butt ugly, really. Especially the use case where the tegra 
> > > PMC
> > > domain removes itself from the hierarchy from .alloc()
> >
> > I don't disagree at all. It is both horrible and dangerous.
> >
> > My preference would have been to split the PMC domain into discrete
> > domains, each one having having its own depth. But that's incredibly
> > hard to express in DT, and would break the combination of old/new
> > DT and kernel.
> >
> > > That said, I don't have a better idea either. Sigh...
> >
> > A (very minor) improvement would be to turn the trim call in the PMC 
> > driver into
> > a flag set in the first invalid irq_data structure, and let
> > __irq_domain_alloc_irqs() do the dirty work.
> >
> > Still crap, but at least would prevent some form of abuse. Thoughts?
>
> Actually, I wonder whether we can have a more general approach:
>
> A partial hierarchy that doesn't have an irq_data->chip pointer 
> populated
> cannot be valid. So I wonder if the least ugly thing to do is to just 
> drop
> any messing about in the PMC driver, and instead to let
> __irq_domain_alloc_irqs()
> do the culling, always, by looking for a NULL pointer in 
> irq_data->chip.
>
> Not any less ugly, but at least doesn't need any driver intervention.

[still talking to myself...]

I implemented that, and it has the advantage of placing the hack in a
single location. It even booted on a garden variety of systems.

I'll post an updated series, and we can compare the various levels
of ugliness.

        M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...