[PATCH v2 17/17] irq: remove handle_domain_{irq,nmi}()

[Mark Rutland]

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 10:57:41AM +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 09:23:56AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 12:52:29AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > +	/* USB interrupts are received in softirq (tasklet) context.
> > > +	 * Switch to hardirq context to make genirq code happy.
> > > +	 */
> > > +	local_irq_save(flags);
> > > +	__irq_enter_raw();
> > > +
> > >  	if (intdata & INT_ENP_PHY_INT_)
> > > -		;
> > > +		generic_handle_domain_irq(pdata->irqdomain, PHY_HWIRQ);
> > 
> > Agreed. IIUC everyone agrees the __irq_enter_raw() usage is a hack,
> > but what's not clear is what we *should* do
> > 
> > I suspect that given we have generic_handle_irq_safe() for situations
> > like this we should add a generic_handle_domain_irq_safe(), and use
> > that in this driver?
> > That way we can keep the `WARN_ON_ONCE(!in_hardirq())` in
> > generic_handle_domain_irq().
> 
> Thomas applied 792ea6a074ae ("genirq: Remove WARN_ON_ONCE() in
> generic_handle_domain_irq()") tonight:
> 
> http://git.kernel.org/tip/tip/c/792ea6a074ae

Ah; I missed that. Sorry for the noise!

> That allows me to drop the controversial __irq_enter_raw()
> and thus unblock my smsc95xx series.
> 
> generic_handle_domain_irq_safe() would merely be a wrapper for
> generic_handle_domain_irq() which disables local interrupts.
> Then I wouldn't have to do that in smsc95xx.c.  IMHO that's a
> cosmetic improvement, though I'll be happy to provide a patch
> if desired?

I think it's a nice-to-have, but I don't have a strong feelings about it, so I
think we can forget about it for now unless Marc or Thomas want it.

Thanks,
Mark.