linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/3] clocksource: rockchip: Make the driver more readability and compatible

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <55FBC36C.2090801@linaro.org>
Date:	Fri, 18 Sep 2015 09:55:24 +0200
From:	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To:	Caesar Wang <caesar.upstream@...il.com>,
	Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
CC:	linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] clocksource: rockchip: Make the driver more readability
 and compatible

On 09/17/2015 12:19 PM, Caesar Wang wrote:
>
>
> 在 2015年09月17日 18:06, Daniel Lezcano 写道:
>> On 09/17/2015 11:28 AM, Caesar Wang wrote:
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>
>>>
>>> 在 2015年09月17日 17:11, Daniel Lezcano 写道:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Caesar,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 09/17/2015 09:51 AM, Caesar Wang wrote:
>>>>> Build the arm64 SoCs (e.g.: RK3368) on Rockchip platform,
>>>>> There are some failure with build up on timer driver for rockchip.
>>>>>
>>>>> logs:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> drivers/clocksource/rockchip_timer.c:156:13: error: 'NO_IRQ'
>>>>> undeclared
>>>>
>>>> I think the NO_IRQ definition is missing for ARM64.
>>>
>>> Yep, Maybe better to compatible if we don't use the 'NO_IRQ',
>>
>> Hmm, after digging into drivers/of/irq.c and kernel/irq/irqdomain.c
>>
>> when there is an error it returns zero. So NO_IRQ and -1 are not
>> correct and on the other side zero can be a valid irq. That sounds a
>> little bit fuzzy to me.
>
> I believe the 'NO_IRQ' is better select if 'NO_IRQ' is defined on ARM64
> platform.
>
>      irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(np, 0);
>
>      if (irq  == NO_IRQ)
> ...
> Also, that's ok if we instead of the 'irq < 0'  or  '!irq' , right?


Hi Caesar,

so regarding Thomas and Russel answers, let's replace NO_IRQ by '!irq'.

Thanks.

   -- Daniel


-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

--
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/