[PATCH 20/41] sparc/irq: Implement new interrupt directives

[Chris Johns]

On 22/7/21 5:08 am, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 21/07/2021 21:04, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 12:31 PM Sebastian Huber
>> <sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de>  wrote:
>>> On 21/07/2021 20:28, Gedare Bloom wrote:
>>>> Why not throw an error here instead? In production, you wouldn't want
>>>> this code...
>>> The main issue is the bad chip design. If we don't have this code, we
>>> can't test the extended interrupts. In production, you want tested code.
>>>
>> ok, thanks. My comments are all pretty minor, except for the
>> terminology issues of "cause" but that wording already exists. post
>> the v2 series, but I probably won't review it and you can check it in
>> if no one complains. It's up to you if you want to work a different
>> wording than "cause" -- I prefer "raise"
> 
> Thanks a lot for the review.
> 
> Joel, what is your opinion with respect to "cause" vs. "raise"?
> 

I think `raise`.

Chris