David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> writes: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 10:37:45AM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: [...] >> This adds "info irq" and "info pic" to the targets that didn't have them >> before, implemented by i8259.c's hmp_info_pic() and hmp_info_irq(). >> They do nothing unless the machine has an "isa-i8259" device. >> >> Cases: >> >> 1. If the machine has one, and it's the only interrupt controller, the >> commands work as advertized. >> >> 2. If the machine doesn't have one, the commands are empty promises. >> >> 3. If the machine has one, but it's not the only interrupt controller, >> the commands confidently claim the i8259 is all there is. >> Misinformation. >> >> Cases 2 and 3 are common, case 1 is rare. >> >> We can: >> >> A. Fix the commands to cover all interrupt controllers. >> >> B. Fix them to warn the user about missing interrupt controllers. >> >> We can approximate this by warning always, because it's almost never >> the only interrupt controller anyway :) >> >> C. Rip 'em both out and be done with it. >> >> D. Do nothing. >> >> E. Provide them as is on all targets. >> >> Spread the badness fairly. >> >> I vote for C or B. A seems not worthwhile. > > I'd love to do C, if we can get confirmation that no-one's really > using the existing HMP commands. That would make a bunch of things > simpler.
I gave it a shot, let's see how people react. [...]
