[PATCH V2 2/2] EDAC: synopsys: re-enable the interrupts in intr_handler for V3.X Synopsys EDAC DDR

[Borislav Petkov]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 09:53:13AM +0800, Sherry Sun wrote:
> Since zynqmp_get_error_info() is called during CE/UE interrupt, at the

This also needs to be made human-readable: for example,
"zynqmp_get_error_info() reads the error information from the registers
when an interrupt for a {un-,}correctable error is raised."

> end of zynqmp_get_error_info(), it wirtes 0 to ECC_CLR_OFST, which cause

Unknown word [wirtes] in commit message.
Suggestions: ['writes',

Please introduce a spellchecker into your patch creation workflow.

> the CE/UE interrupts of V3.X Synopsys EDAC DDR been disabled, then the

"which disables the error interrupts" - make it simple - no need for the
V3.X marketing bla.

> interrupt handler will be called only once, so need to re-enable the

"Therefore, reenable the error interrupt line ..."

> interrupts at the end of intr_handler for V3.X Synopsys EDAC DDR.

I think you're catching my drift: our commit messages need to be
understandable and when read months, years from now, still to make
sense.

> Signed-off-by: Sherry Sun <sherry.sun at nxp.com>
> Reviewed-by: Shubhrajyoti Datta <Shubhrajyoti.datta at xilinx.com>
> Acked-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek at xilinx.com>
> ---
> Changes in V2:
> 1. Add the Reviewed-by and Acked-by tag.
> 2. Add the newline as suggested by Michal.
> ---
>  drivers/edac/synopsys_edac.c | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/edac/synopsys_edac.c b/drivers/edac/synopsys_edac.c
> index 88a481043d4c..ae1cf02a92f5 100644
> --- a/drivers/edac/synopsys_edac.c
> +++ b/drivers/edac/synopsys_edac.c
> @@ -527,6 +527,8 @@ static void handle_error(struct mem_ctl_info *mci, struct synps_ecc_status *p)
>  	memset(p, 0, sizeof(*p));
>  }
>  
> +static void enable_intr(struct synps_edac_priv *priv);

Why the forward declaration?

Why not simply move {enable,disable}_intr() upwards in that file?

Also, for both fixes: do you want them backported in stable kernels?

I think you do because they look like you'd want that v3.x support to
work with older kernels too.

If so, read the section about "Fixes:" in
Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette