Re: [PATCH v2 15/26] xen/riscv: introduce (de)initialization helpers for vINTC

[Oleksii Kurochko <oleksii.kurochko@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/5/26 9:26 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > +    switch ( ver )
> > > > +    {
> > > > +    case INTC_APLIC:
> > > > +        ret = domain_vaplic_init(d);
> > > > +        break;
> > > > +
> > > > +    default:
> > > > +        printk("vintc (ver:%d) isn't implemented\n", ver);
> > > If we take this path for whatever reason, ...
> > >
> > > > +        break;
> > > > +    }
> > > > +
> > > > +    return ret;
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +void domain_vintc_deinit(struct domain *d)
> > > > +{
> > > > +    const enum intc_version ver = intc_hw_ops->info->hw_version;
> > > > +
> > > > +    switch ( ver )
> > > > +    {
> > > > +    case INTC_APLIC:
> > > > +        domain_vaplic_deinit(d);
> > > > +        break;
> > > > +
> > > > +    default:
> > > > +        printk("vintc (ver:%d) isn't implemented\n", ver);
> > > ... we're also going to take this path (very quickly afterwards), just to
> > > get the same message twice without it being clear why it appears twice.
> > I missed to add printk("%s: ...", __func__, ...). I will update
> > correspondingly if we will follow this way.
> That's not quite what I was after, though. I question the need for this latter
> message.
I think I got you, and I agree that when someone decides to add support 
for a new IC to domain_vintc_init(), it is expected that 
domain_vintc_deinit() will be updated as well. So there is no real need 
to have the same or a very similar message in domain_vintc_deinit().
I will remove the message from domain_vintc_deinit().

Thanks.

~ Oleksii