On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 4:08 PM, JeffyChen <jeffy.chen at rock-chips.com> wrote:
> Hi Tomasz,
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> On 01/17/2018 12:21 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jeffy,
>>
>> Thanks for the patch. Please see my comments inline.
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:25 PM, Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen at rock-chips.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Please add patch description.
>
>
> ok, will do.
>>
>>
>>> Suggested-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy at arm.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen at rock-chips.com>
>>> ---
>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>> - 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]);
>>> + num_irq = of_irq_count(dev->of_node);
>>> + for (i = 0; i < num_irq; i++) {
>>> + irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, i);
>>
>>
>> This lacks consistency. of_irq_count() is used for counting, but
>> platform_get_irq() is used for getting. Either platform_ or of_ API
>> should be used for both and I'd lean for platform_, since it's more
>> general.
>
> hmmm, right, i was thinking of removing num_irq, and do something like:
> while (nr++) {
> err = platform_get_irq(dev, nr);
> if (err == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> break;
> if (err < 0)
> return err;
> ....
> }
>
> but forgot to do that..
Was there anything wrong with platform_irq_count() used by existing code?
>
>>
>>> + if (irq < 0) {
>>> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get IRQ, %d\n", irq);
>>> return -ENXIO;
>>> }
>>> + err = devm_request_irq(iommu->dev, irq, rk_iommu_irq,
>>> + IRQF_SHARED, dev_name(dev),
>>> iommu);
>>> + if (err)
>>> + return err;
>>> }
>>
>>
>> Looks like there is some more initialization below. Is the driver okay
>> with the IRQ being potentially fired right here? (Shared IRQ handlers
>> might be run at request_irq() time for testing.)
>>
> right, forget about that. maybe we can check iommu->domain not NULL in
> rk_iommu_irq()
Maybe we could just move IRQ requesting to the end of probe?
Best regards,
Tomasz
