Revert "powerpc: 52xx: provide a default in mpc52xx_irqhost_map()"

Hi,

On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 09:54:51AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 10/01/2013 09:26 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > This reverts commit 6391f697d4892a6f233501beea553e13f7745a23. The
> > compiler warning it wants to fix does not appear with my gcc 4.6.2. IMO
> > we don't need superfluous (and here even misleading) code to make old
> > compilers happy. Fixing the printout was bogus, too. We want to know
> > WHICH critical irq failed, not which level it had.
> 
> According to minimal Doc*/Changes minimal gcc is 3.2. Mine was 4.3.5.

Well, if you insist, I'd prefer the following patch.

From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
Subject: [PATCH] ppc: mpc52xx: silence false positive from old GCC

So people can compile with -Werror (RT patchset).

Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de>
---
 arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_pic.c |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)


> Why miss leading code? Default here does the same as unhandled and crit
> where it does nothing.

People not realizing 'default' is a no-op might wonder why unknown
levels are mapped to critical.

> Any why do you want to see l2irq since it was
> not in the case statement? l2 holds the number, l1 the level.

We know which level it was, since the printout is only for that level.
We probably want to know which requested IRQ was causing this, so we can
fix the assorted driver. Otherwise we only know that some critical IRQ
was requested somewhere.

> You were but your email bounced. I wasn't aware of this new email
> address you are using now.

Ah, I see, pity.

Thanks,

   Wolfram

On 10/01/2013 11:11 AM, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> Hi,

Hi Wolfram,

> Well, if you insist, I'd prefer the following patch.
> 
> From: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> Subject: [PATCH] ppc:
> mpc52xx: silence false positive from old GCC
> 
> So people can compile with -Werror (RT patchset).

Why do you mention the RT patch set here? Doesn't the vanila tree gets
compiled with -Werror as well?

> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa@the-dreams.de> --- 
> arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_pic.c |    2 +- 1 file changed,
> 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_pic.c
> b/arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_pic.c index b89ef65..ad3c9b0
> 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_pic.c +++
> b/arch/powerpc/platforms/52xx/mpc52xx_pic.c @@ -340,7 +340,7 @@
> static int mpc52xx_irqhost_map(struct irq_domain *h, unsigned int
> virq, { int l1irq; int l2irq; -	struct irq_chip *irqchip; +	struct
> irq_chip *irqchip = NULL; /* pet old compilers */

That would probably work, too. I would drop that comment but then
someone might clean that up :P

> void *hndlr; int type; u32 reg;
> 
>> Why miss leading code? Default here does the same as unhandled
>> and crit where it does nothing.
> 
> People not realizing 'default' is a no-op might wonder why unknown 
> levels are mapped to critical.

I see. And what would you suggest as default in case we would have an
additional bit?

> 
>> Any why do you want to see l2irq since it was not in the case
>> statement? l2 holds the number, l1 the level.
> 
> We know which level it was, since the printout is only for that
> level. We probably want to know which requested IRQ was causing
> this, so we can fix the assorted driver. Otherwise we only know
> that some critical IRQ was requested somewhere.

Hmmm. I assumed that critical / SDMA / … are interrupt numbers but they
are seem not be. In that case I guess l2 is more important. l1 kinda
looks important since it is the value in the switch case which failed
but since it can only hold one possible value, I guess your info is
better :)

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Wolfram
> 
Sebastian