Hi Heiko,
On 07/21/2017 03:07 PM, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> Am Freitag, 21. Juli 2017, 14:27:09 CEST schrieb Simon Xue:
>> From: Simon <xxm at rock-chips.com>
>>
>> RK3368 vpu mmu have two irqs, this patch support multi irqs
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Simon <xxm at rock-chips.com>
>> ---
>> changes since V1:
>> - use devm_kcalloc instead of devm_kzalloc when alloc irq array
>>
>> drivers/iommu/rockchip-iommu.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/rockchip-iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/rockchip-iommu.c
>> index 4ba48a2..3c462c0 100644
>> --- a/drivers/iommu/rockchip-iommu.c
>> +++ b/drivers/iommu/rockchip-iommu.c
>> @@ -90,7 +90,8 @@ struct rk_iommu {
>> struct device *dev;
>> void __iomem **bases;
>> int num_mmu;
>> - int irq;
>> + int *irq;
>> + int num_irq;
>> struct iommu_device iommu;
>> struct list_head node; /* entry in rk_iommu_domain.iommus */
>> struct iommu_domain *domain; /* domain to which iommu is attached */
>> @@ -825,10 +826,12 @@ static int rk_iommu_attach_device(struct iommu_domain *domain,
>>
>> iommu->domain = domain;
>>
>> - ret = devm_request_irq(iommu->dev, iommu->irq, rk_iommu_irq,
>> - IRQF_SHARED, dev_name(dev), iommu);
>> - if (ret)
>> - return ret;
>> + for (i = 0; i < iommu->num_irq; i++) {
>> + ret = devm_request_irq(iommu->dev, iommu->irq[i], rk_iommu_irq,
>> + IRQF_SHARED, dev_name(dev), iommu);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> + }
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < iommu->num_mmu; i++) {
>> rk_iommu_write(iommu->bases[i], RK_MMU_DTE_ADDR,
>> @@ -878,7 +881,8 @@ static void rk_iommu_detach_device(struct iommu_domain *domain,
>> }
>> rk_iommu_disable_stall(iommu);
>>
>> - devm_free_irq(iommu->dev, iommu->irq, iommu);
>> + for (i = 0; i < iommu->num_irq; i++)
>> + devm_free_irq(iommu->dev, iommu->irq[i], iommu);
>>
>> iommu->domain = NULL;
>>
>> @@ -1157,10 +1161,20 @@ static int rk_iommu_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> if (iommu->num_mmu == 0)
>> return PTR_ERR(iommu->bases[0]);
>>
>> - iommu->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>> - if (iommu->irq < 0) {
>> - dev_err(dev, "Failed to get IRQ, %d\n", iommu->irq);
>> - return -ENXIO;
>> + while (platform_get_irq(pdev, iommu->num_irq) >= 0)
>> + iommu->num_irq++;
> Hmm, this could also result in a iommu having 0 irqs if wrongly
> configured and probe would still suceed. This sounds somehow
> wrong to me.
>
> But I'm not sure if there is precedent on how to handle a variable
> number of interrupts correctly somewhere.
How about add a judgement for iommu->num_irq ? like this:
if (!iommu->num_irq)
return -ENOXIO;
>
> Heiko
>
>> +
>> + iommu->irq = devm_kcalloc(dev, iommu->num_irq, sizeof(*iommu->irq),
>> + GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!iommu->irq)
>> + return -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < iommu->num_irq; i++) {
>> + iommu->irq[i] = platform_get_irq(pdev, i);
>> + if (iommu->irq[i] < 0) {
>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get IRQ, %d\n", iommu->irq[i]);
>> + return -ENXIO;
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> err = iommu_device_sysfs_add(&iommu->iommu, dev, NULL, dev_name(dev));
>>
>
>
>
>
