[PATCH/RFC 1/2] of/irq: Ignore interrupt parent for nodes without interrupts
Geert Uytterhoeven
geert at linux-m68k.org
Mon Oct 6 00:35:04 PDT 2025
Hi Rob,
On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 at 15:33, Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2025 at 5:08 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert+renesas at glider.be> wrote:
> > The Devicetree Specification states:
> >
> > The root of the interrupt tree is determined when traversal of the
> > interrupt tree reaches an interrupt controller node without an
> > interrupts property and thus no explicit interrupt parent.
> >
> > However, of_irq_init() gratuitously assumes that a node without
> > interrupts has an actual interrupt parent if it finds an
> > interrupt-parent property higher up in the device tree. Hence when such
> > a property is present (e.g. in the root node), the root interrupt
> > controller may not be detected as such, causing a panic:
> >
> > OF: of_irq_init: children remain, but no parents
> > Kernel panic - not syncing: No interrupt controller found.
> >
> > Commit e91033621d56e055 ("of/irq: Use interrupts-extended to find
> > parent") already fixed a first part, by checking for the presence of an
> > interrupts-extended property. Fix the second part by only calling
> > of_irq_find_parent() when an interrupts property is present.
>
> Seems reasonable. Why the RFC tag?
Perhaps you might object to putting interrupt-parent in the root node
if it does not point to the root interrupt controller, or if it does
not help to simplify interrupts-extended to interrupts (like e.g. for
ARM arch timer)?
Thanks!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
More information about the linux-riscv
mailing list