[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160407075214.GX3323@x1>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 08:52:14 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: Henry Chen <henryc.chen@...iatek.com>
Cc: John Crispin <blogic@...nwrt.org>,
Yingjoe Chen <yingjoe.chen@...iatek.com>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Flora Fu <flora.fu@...iatek.com>,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org, linux@...ck-us.net,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mfd: mt6397: irq domain should initialize before
mfd_add_devices()
On Wed, 06 Apr 2016, Henry Chen wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 16:07 +0200, John Crispin wrote:
> >
> > On 31/03/2016 15:41, Yingjoe Chen wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 11:08 +0200, John Crispin wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 31/03/2016 04:32, Yingjoe Chen wrote:
> > >>> On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 09:40 +0800, Henry Chen wrote:
> > >>>> On Wed, 2016-03-30 at 11:18 +0200, John Crispin wrote:
> > >>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> small nitpick inline
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On 30/03/2016 09:25, Henry Chen wrote:
> > >>>>>> Some sub driver like RTC module need irq domain from parent to create
> > >>>>>> irq mapping when driver initialize. so move mt6397_irq_init() before
> > >>>>>> mfd_add_devices().
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Henry Chen <henryc.chen@...iatek.com>
> > >>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>> This patch fixed the below warning based on "Linux kernel v4.6-rc1"
> > >>>>>> WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 132 at kernel/mediatek/kernel/irq/irqdomain.c:471
> > >>>>>> irq_create_mapping+0xc4/0xd0
> > >>>>>> ---
> > >>>>>> drivers/mfd/mt6397-core.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> > >>>>>> 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/mt6397-core.c b/drivers/mfd/mt6397-core.c
> > >>>>>> index 8e8d932..a879223 100644
> > >>>>>> --- a/drivers/mfd/mt6397-core.c
> > >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/mfd/mt6397-core.c
> > >>>>>> @@ -270,22 +270,36 @@ static int mt6397_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > >>>>>> goto fail_irq;
> > >>>>>> }
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> + pmic->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> > >>>>>> +
> > >>>>>> switch (id & 0xff) {
> > >>>>>> case MT6323_CID_CODE:
> > >>>>>> - pmic->int_con[0] = MT6323_INT_CON0;
> > >>>>>> - pmic->int_con[1] = MT6323_INT_CON1;
> > >>>>>> - pmic->int_status[0] = MT6323_INT_STATUS0;
> > >>>>>> - pmic->int_status[1] = MT6323_INT_STATUS1;
> > >>>>>> + if (pmic->irq > 0) {
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> should this not be
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> if (pmic->irq >= 0) {
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> i think the code before your patch was wrong as linux irqs start with 0.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> John
> > >>>> Hi John,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks, I will modify this.
> > >>>
> > >>> Linux irq start from 1, 0 is invalid. I can't find the document saying
> > >>> this now, but you could see this from irq_create_mapping() in
> > >>> kernel/irq/irqdomain.c
> > >>>
> > >>> I think the code should have check return from platform_get_irq and
> > >>> handle -EPROBE_DEFER, but maybe it should be another patch?
> > >>>
> > >>> BTW, in this function, it is possible that pmic->irq_domain will be NULL
> > >>> in fail_irq error handling. We should check before calling
> > >>> irq_domain_remove.
> > >>>
> > >>> Joe.C
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> looking at
> > >> http://lxr.free-electrons.com/source/drivers/base/platform.c#L87 there
> > >> is a check in line #100 ret >= 0
> > >>
> > >> checking the return value of pmic->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> > >> should follow the same pattern i think .. unless i have a thinko and am
> > >> reading the code wrong.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm not sure why platform_get_irq() check for 0, but I think the code
> > > logic is differnet.
> > >
> > > When platform_get_irq() return 0 to our code, it means we don't have
> > > valid irq to use. In this case it doesn't make any sense to continue
> > > init irq.
> > >
> > >
> > > Joe.C
> > >
> >
> >
> > --> http://lwn.net/Articles/470820/
> >
> > indeed ARM has changed this is seems. was not aware of this change,
> > sorry for the noise
> >
> > John
>
> Hi Lee/Joe/John,
>
> Thanks for comment, that means we can keep this patch for 4.6-rc1
> regression (RTC get NULL irq issue), right?
Just re-send everything with any Acks that you collected.
> I will send another patch to fixed above error handling problem.
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists