Hi Tomasz,
On 01/17/2018 03:16 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>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?
just thought the platform_irq_count might ignore some errors(except for
EPROBE_DEFER):
int platform_irq_count(struct platform_device *dev)
{
int ret, nr = 0;
while ((ret = platform_get_irq(dev, nr)) >= 0)
nr++;
if (ret == -EPROBE_DEFER)
return ret;
return nr;
}
but guess that would not matter..
>
>> >
>>> >>
>>>> >>>+ 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?
>
ok, that should work too.
and maybe we should also check power status in the irq handler? if it
get fired after powered off...
> Best regards,
> Tomasz
>
>
>
