[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201302241611.13028.heiko@sntech.de>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 16:11:12 +0100
From: Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>
To: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc: "Russell King - ARM Linux" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
ben-linux@...ff.org, kgene.kim@...sung.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: question about arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/irq.c
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.
Heiko
[0] http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-samsung-
soc@...r.kernel.org/msg15709.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists