Hi Mark,
On 7 April 2017 at 01:52, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 01:39:09AM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
>> On 7 April 2017 at 01:24, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:47:47AM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
>> >> On 6 April 2017 at 02:38, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > On Sat, Apr 01, 2017 at 01:51:03AM +0800, fu.wei@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> > However, I would prefer to simplify this such that we only free the
>> > IRQs in the error path.
>> >
>> > We should be able to iterate over all freams, freeing any non-zero
>> > interrupt, since !valid frames shouldn't have non-zero interrupts.
>>
>> Yes, that is what I am doing :
>>
>> if (!frame->valid)
>> continue;
>
> What I meant was that we won't look at the frame->valid flag at all;
> only the interrupts. e.g.
>
> for (int i = 0; i < ARCH_TIMER_MEM_MAX_FRAMES; i++) {
> if (frame->phys_irq > 0)
> free_the_phys_irq_somehow();
> if (frame->virt_irq > 0)
> free_the_virt_irq_somehow();
> }
Since we use "kcalloc" to allocate struct arch_timer_mem, this should be OK.
>
> ... where we somehow figure out the GSI, or we introduce an api like
> unregister_gsi_for_irq(irq).
Yes, If you are OK with introducing a new API , this problem is solved :-)
>
> Since the !valid frames should all have zero for their interrupt fields,
> no special handling is necessary.
>
> That way, we only free the IRQs in one place, it's obvious that we
> consistently free all of them, etc.
>
>> Lorenzo addressed the API issue, we may can fix it by getting GSI info
>> from DT, then register it until we figure the best frame.
>> It may need some big change in DT code
>
> I'd prefer to keep this constrained to the ACPI code. ;)
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
--
Best regards,
Fu Wei
Software Engineer
Red Hat
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
