Am Sonntag, 24. Februar 2013, 16:45:18 schrieb Julia Lawall:
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2013, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, 24. Februar 2013, 14:39:45 schrieb Julia Lawall:
> > > [Adding the person who introduced the code]
> > >
> > > On Sun, 24 Feb 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:45:11PM +0100, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > > > The function s3c24xx_irq_map in arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/irq.c
> > > > > contains the
> > > > >
> > > > > code:
> > > > > parent_irq_data =
> > > > > &parent_intc->irqs[irq_data->parent_irq];
> > > > >
> > > > > if (!irq_data) {
> > > > >
> > > > > pr_err("irq-s3c24xx: no irq data found for
> > > > > hwirq %lu\n",
> > > > >
> > > > > hw);
> > > > >
> > > > > goto err;
> > > > >
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > At this point irq_data has already been tested, so the null test on
> > > > > irq_data does not look correct. But I wonder if parent_irq_data
> > > > > could ever be null here?
> > > >
> > > > That would be really obscure - because that would require parent_intc
> > > > to be a "negative" pointer (to counter-act the indexing by
> > > > irq_data->parent_irq). So it looks to me like the above is
> > > > redundant.
> > >
> > > Even at its original definition irq_data seems unlikely to be NULL:
> > > struct s3c_irq_intc *intc = h->host_data;
> > >
> > > struct s3c_irq_data *irq_data = &intc->irqs[hw];
> > > ...
> > > if (!irq_data) {
> > >
> > > pr_err("irq-s3c24xx: no irq data found for hwirq
> > > %lu\n",
> > >
> > > hw); return -EINVAL;
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > That is, it could be an invalid value, but whether it actually hits 0
> > > would seem to depend on the value hw?
> > >
> > > Heiko, is NULL really a possibility?
> >
> > The test you quoted is of course wrong ... it would need to test
> > parent_irq_data. But you're also right that the test is not necessary at
> > all.
> >
> > All the s3c_irq_data arrays used always contain 32 entries to reach all
> > bits of the register (which is used differently on each SoC). So if we
> > have found the parent_intc at all, it should contain a 32 entries array
> > of irq_data structs, so no need to test for the existence of the
> > individual array element.
> >
> >
> > And now that I look at it, I also see another glitch. The code tests for
> > parent_irq != 0, which of course won't work if the parent_irq is the
> > 0-hwirq of the parent controller.
> > The only SoC using such a mapping is the s3c2412 [0], which explains why
> > I haven't been bitten by this myself.
>
> Do you want to make all the fixes?
Yep, I just need to find out what the best fix for my parent_irq mess up would
be :-)
The easiest way would of course be to use a value outside the valid range to
indicate no parent-irq, so either < 0 (would need a type change) or > 32 .
But I might be overlooking something here.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
