linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/8] mfd: pm8921: Implement irq_get_irqchip

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 18 Jun 2015 09:37:41 -0700
From:	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn@...o.se>
To:	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Cc:	Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...ymobile.com>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Andy Gross <agross@...eaurora.org>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-soc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] mfd: pm8921: Implement irq_get_irqchip_state

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:32 AM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com> wrote:
> Hi Bjorn,
>
[..]
>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/pm8921-core.c b/drivers/mfd/pm8921-core.c
[..]
>> +static int pm8xxx_irq_get_irqchip_state(struct irq_data *d,
>> +                                     enum irqchip_irq_state which,
>> +                                     bool *state)
>> +{
>> +     struct pm_irq_chip *chip = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
>> +     unsigned int pmirq = irqd_to_hwirq(d);
>> +     unsigned int bits;
>> +     int irq_bit;
>> +     u8 block;
>> +     int rc;
>> +
>> +     if (!chip) {
>> +             pr_err("Failed to resolve pm_irq_chip\n");
>> +             return -EINVAL;
>> +     }
>
> Why do you need to check this? Is there any code path that could
> actually trigger this?
>

This is a remnant of times before our new fancy api, from what I can
see it should be dropped.

>> +
>> +     if (which != IRQCHIP_STATE_LINE_LEVEL)
>> +             return -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +     block = pmirq / 8;
>> +     irq_bit = pmirq % 8;
>> +
>> +     spin_lock(&chip->pm_irq_lock);
>> +     rc = regmap_write(chip->regmap, SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_BLK_SEL, block);
>> +     if (rc) {
>> +             pr_err("Failed Selecting Block %d rc=%d\n", block, rc);
>> +             goto bail;
>> +     }
>> +
>> +     rc = regmap_read(chip->regmap, SSBI_REG_ADDR_IRQ_RT_STATUS, &bits);
>> +     if (rc) {
>> +             pr_err("Failed Reading Status rc=%d\n", rc);
>> +             goto bail;
>> +     }
>> +
>> +     *state = !!(bits & BIT(irq_bit));
>> +bail:
>> +     spin_unlock(&chip->pm_irq_lock);
>> +
>> +     return rc ? rc : 0;
>
> I think you can just have "return rc;" here.
>

You're right.

Thanks for the review!

Regards,
Bjorn
--
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/