Re: [PATCH] xen/arm: irq: Use appropriate priority for SGIs in setup_irq()

[Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Sorry for the late answer.

On 16/09/2025 11:19, Mykola Kvach wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 13, 2025 at 1:01 AM Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Mykola Kvach <mykola_kvach@xxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >    xen/arch/arm/irq.c | 8 +++++++-
> > >    1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/irq.c b/xen/arch/arm/irq.c
> > > index 02ca82c089..17c7ac92b5 100644
> > > --- a/xen/arch/arm/irq.c
> > > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/irq.c
> > > @@ -397,7 +397,13 @@ int setup_irq(unsigned int irq, unsigned int irqflags, 
> > > struct irqaction *new)
> > AFAIK, we are not using setup_irq() to handle SGIs because they are all
> > static and always enabled. Are you planning to handle dynamic SGIs? If
> > yes, then can you provide more details?As far as I know, there can be at least one 
> > “dynamic” SGI in Xen.
> As far as I know, there is at least one “dynamic” SGI in Xen. For
> example, see ffa_notif.c in the functions ffa_notif_init_interrupt
> and ffa_notif_init, which handle initialization of such SGIs.
Bertrand can you comment on this? In particular, do we want the FFA SGIs 
to have the priority of the internal ones?
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall