On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 04:07:25PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 06:21:07PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 02:40:12AM +0800, fu.wei@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > If yes, why can't it simply be written like this ?
> >
> > for (; i >= 0; i--, gtdt_frame--) {
> > frame = &timer_mem->frame[gtdt_frame->frame_number];
> >
> > /* not sure this check is actually needed */
> > if (gtdt_frame->common_flags & ACPI_GTDT_GT_IS_SECURE_TIMER)
> > continue;
> >
> > if (frame->phys_irq > 0)
> > acpi_unregister_gsi(gtdt_frame->timer_interrupt);
> > if (frame->virt_irq > 0)
> > acpi_unregister_gsi(gtdt_frame->virtual_timer_interrupt);
> > }
>
> A reverse loop of this form will work.
>
> That requires some restructuring, and care to avoid going out of bounds
> instantaneously with the gtdt_frame--, so as to not invoke nasal demons.
>
> I've attacked this locally, and will send this out after testing. I'll
> drop the new ACPI API patch.
FWIW, I've set this up so the cleanup path is:
do {
if (gtdt_frame->common_flags & ACPI_GTDT_GT_IS_SECURE_TIMER ||
gtdt_frame->frame_number >= ARCH_TIMER_MEM_MAX_FRAMES)
continue;
frame = &timer_mem->frame[gtdt_frame->frame_number];
if (frame->phys_irq > 0)
acpi_unregister_gsi(gtdt_frame->timer_interrupt);
frame->phys_irq = 0;
if (frame->virt_irq > 0)
acpi_unregister_gsi(gtdt_frame->virtual_timer_interrupt);
frame->virt_irq = 0;
} while (i-- >= 0 && gtdt_frame--);
... the zeroing is to account for duplicate frames, which I now check for in
the probe path (as we do for DT).
Can I take it per your comment on the prior version that with this change I can
take your ack?
I also assume that you're happy for all of the drivers/acpi/arm64/ patches in the
series to go via the clocksource tree?
Thanks,
Mark.
--
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
