Hi Niklas, On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 3:29 PM Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Lad, > > On 2022-01-05 19:25:25 +0000, Lad, Prabhakar wrote: > > Hi Niklas, > > > > Thank you for the review. > > > > On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 7:13 PM Niklas Söderlund > > <niklas.soderlund@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Lad, > > > > > > Thanks for your work. > > > > > > On 2022-01-04 14:52:11 +0000, Lad Prabhakar wrote: > > > > platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_IRQ, ..) relies on static > > > > allocation of IRQ resources in DT core code, this causes an issue > > > > when using hierarchical interrupt domains using "interrupts" property > > > > in the node as this bypasses the hierarchical setup and messes up the > > > > irq chaining. > > > > > > > > In preparation for removal of static setup of IRQ resource from DT core > > > > code use platform_get_irq_optional(). > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > v2-v3: > > > > * Fixed review comment pointed by Andy > > > > > > > > v1->v2 > > > > * Simplified checking error code > > > > * Break loop earlier if no interrupts are seen > > > > > > > > v1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2021/12/18/163 > > > > --- > > > > drivers/thermal/rcar_thermal.c | 17 ++++++++++++----- > > > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/rcar_thermal.c b/drivers/thermal/rcar_thermal.c > > > > index b49f04daaf47..e480f7290ccf 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/thermal/rcar_thermal.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/thermal/rcar_thermal.c > > > > @@ -445,7 +445,7 @@ static int rcar_thermal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > struct rcar_thermal_common *common; > > > > struct rcar_thermal_priv *priv; > > > > struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; > > > > - struct resource *res, *irq; > > > > + struct resource *res; > > > > const struct rcar_thermal_chip *chip = of_device_get_match_data(dev); > > > > int mres = 0; > > > > int i; > > > > @@ -467,9 +467,16 @@ static int rcar_thermal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > pm_runtime_get_sync(dev); > > > > > > > > for (i = 0; i < chip->nirqs; i++) { > > > > - irq = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_IRQ, i); > > > > - if (!irq) > > > > - continue; > > > > + int irq; > > > > + > > > > + irq = platform_get_irq_optional(pdev, i); > > > > + if (irq < 0 && irq != -ENXIO) { > > > > + ret = irq; > > > > + goto error_unregister; > > > > + } > > > > + if (!irq || irq == -ENXIO) > > > > + break; > > > > > > This do not look correct and differs form v1. > > > > > > In the old code if we can't get an IRQ the loop is continued. This is > > > used to detect if interrupts are supported or not on the platform. This > > > change will fail on all systems that don't describes interrupts in DT > > > while the driver can function without interrupts. > > > > > There are no non-DT users for this driver. Do you see this driver > > being used in a non-DT environment in near future? > > No, maybe I was unclear sorry about that. What I intended to say was > that this change will break platforms that that make use of this driver > but do not describe interrupts in its DT description. As with this > change not describing interrupts is consider an error. > > For example checkout thermal@ffc48000 in arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7779.dtsi. > If the interrupts are missing in DT (for example in [1]) platform_get_irq_optional() will return -ENXIO with this patch this error code is handled gracefully i.e. it doesn't return error and breaks instead keeping the orignal behavior of the driver. [1] arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7779.dtsi Cheers, Prabhakar
