On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 9:02 AM Horia Geanta <horia.geanta@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 7/17/2019 6:25 PM, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> > In order to avoid any risk of JR IRQ request being handled while some
> > of the resources used for that are not yet allocated move the code
> > requesting said IRQ to the endo of caam_jr_init(). No functional
> ^ typo
> > change intended.
> >
> What qualifies as a "functional change"?
> I've seen this comment in several commits.
>
My intent was to mark refactoring only changes as such. Probably not
appropriate for this commit. Will drop in v7.
> > error = caam_reset_hw_jr(dev);
> > if (error)
> > - goto out_kill_deq;
> > + return error;
> >
> > error = -ENOMEM;
> > jrp->inpring = dmam_alloc_coherent(dev, sizeof(*jrp->inpring) *
> > JOBR_DEPTH, &inpbusaddr,
> > GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!jrp->inpring)
> > - goto out_kill_deq;
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> Above there's "error = -ENOMEM;", so why not "return err;" here and
> in all the other cases below?
>
I was going to remove that "error = -ENOMEM;", but forgot. Will do in v7.
> >
> > jrp->outring = dmam_alloc_coherent(dev, sizeof(*jrp->outring) *
> > JOBR_DEPTH, &outbusaddr,
> > GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!jrp->outring)
> > - goto out_kill_deq;
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > jrp->entinfo = devm_kcalloc(dev, JOBR_DEPTH, sizeof(*jrp->entinfo),
> > GFP_KERNEL);
> > if (!jrp->entinfo)
> > - goto out_kill_deq;
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > for (i = 0; i < JOBR_DEPTH; i++)
> > jrp->entinfo[i].desc_addr_dma = !0;
> > @@ -483,10 +472,19 @@ static int caam_jr_init(struct device *dev)
> > (JOBR_INTC_COUNT_THLD << JRCFG_ICDCT_SHIFT) |
> > (JOBR_INTC_TIME_THLD << JRCFG_ICTT_SHIFT));
> >
> > + tasklet_init(&jrp->irqtask, caam_jr_dequeue, (unsigned long)dev);
> > +
> > + /* Connect job ring interrupt handler. */
> > + error = devm_request_irq(dev, jrp->irq, caam_jr_interrupt, IRQF_SHARED,
> > + dev_name(dev), dev);
> > + if (error) {
> > + dev_err(dev, "can't connect JobR %d interrupt (%d)\n",
> > + jrp->ridx, jrp->irq);
> > + tasklet_kill(&jrp->irqtask);
> > + return error;
> "return error;" should be moved out the if block.
>
Sure, will do in v7.
Thanks,
Andrey Smirnov
