On 18.07.2025 12:11, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> From: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii_stras...@epam.com>
>
> Hence all common PIRQ code is under CONFIG_HAS_PIRQ idefs corresponding Arm
> arch callbacks become unreachable, so drop them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii_stras...@epam.com>
> ---
> xen/arch/arm/irq.c | 29 -----------------------------
> 1 file changed, 29 deletions(-)
Can this really be a separate change? That is, aren't we going to have transient
Misra violations (for Arm only) between the two changes?
Jan
> --- a/xen/arch/arm/irq.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/irq.c
> @@ -595,35 +595,6 @@ unlock:
> return ret;
> }
>
> -/*
> - * pirq event channels. We don't use these on ARM, instead we use the
> - * features of the GIC to inject virtualised normal interrupts.
> - */
> -struct pirq *alloc_pirq_struct(struct domain *d)
> -{
> - return NULL;
> -}
> -
> -/*
> - * These are all unreachable given an alloc_pirq_struct
> - * which returns NULL, all callers try to lookup struct pirq first
> - * which will fail.
> - */
> -int pirq_guest_bind(struct vcpu *v, struct pirq *pirq, int will_share)
> -{
> - BUG();
> -}
> -
> -void pirq_guest_unbind(struct domain *d, struct pirq *pirq)
> -{
> - BUG();
> -}
> -
> -void pirq_set_affinity(struct domain *d, int pirq, const cpumask_t *mask)
> -{
> - BUG();
> -}
> -
> static bool irq_validate_new_type(unsigned int curr, unsigned int new)
> {
> return (curr == IRQ_TYPE_INVALID || curr == new );
