On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 1:12 PM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hello Rafael,
>
> I spotted an issue with this patch. Please see below.
>
>
> On Fri, 15 May 2020 at 18:32, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:37 AM Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Per the ACPI spec, interrupts in the range [0, 255] may be handled
> > > in AML using individual methods whose naming is based on the format
> > > _Exx or _Lxx, where xx is the hex representation of the interrupt
> > > index.
> > >
> > > Add support for this missing feature to our ACPI GED driver.
> > >
> > > Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> # v4.9+
> > > Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/acpi/evged.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++---
> > > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/evged.c b/drivers/acpi/evged.c
> > > index aba0d0027586..6d7a522952bf 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/acpi/evged.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/evged.c
> > > @@ -79,6 +79,8 @@ static acpi_status acpi_ged_request_interrupt(struct acpi_resource *ares,
> > > struct resource r;
> > > struct acpi_resource_irq *p = &ares->data.irq;
> > > struct acpi_resource_extended_irq *pext = &ares->data.extended_irq;
> > > + char ev_name[5];
> > > + u8 trigger;
> > >
> > > if (ares->type == ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_END_TAG)
> > > return AE_OK;
> > > @@ -87,14 +89,28 @@ static acpi_status acpi_ged_request_interrupt(struct acpi_resource *ares,
> > > dev_err(dev, "unable to parse IRQ resource\n");
> > > return AE_ERROR;
> > > }
> > > - if (ares->type == ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_IRQ)
> > > + if (ares->type == ACPI_RESOURCE_TYPE_IRQ) {
> > > gsi = p->interrupts[0];
> > > - else
> > > + trigger = p->triggering;
> > > + } else {
> > > gsi = pext->interrupts[0];
> > > + trigger = p->triggering;
>
> This should be 'pext->triggering' instead.
>
> In practice, it doesn't matter, since p and pext point to the same
> union, and the 'triggering' field happens to be at the same offset.
> But it should still be fixed, of course.
>
> Would you prefer a followup patch? Or can you fix it locally?
A followup, please.
