[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a2afc634-6e0a-cd8d-dbab-b72d3f9af3f9@broadcom.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 17:00:03 -0700
From: Ray Jui <ray.jui@...adcom.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
Ray Jui <rjui@...adcom.com>,
Scott Branden <sbranden@...adcom.com>,
bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] clocksource: kona: fix get_counter error handling
Hi Arnd,
On 8/10/2016 2:54 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> I could not figure out why, but gcc cannot prove that the
> kona_timer_init function always initializes its two outputs,
> and we get a warning for the use of the 'lsw' variable later,
> which is obviously correct.
>
> drivers/clocksource/bcm_kona_timer.c: In function 'kona_timer_init':
> drivers/clocksource/bcm_kona_timer.c:119:13: error: 'lsw' may be used uninitialized in this function [-Werror=maybe-uninitialized]
>
> Slightly reordering the loop makes the warning disappear, after
> it becomes more obvious to the compiler that the loop is
> always entered on the first iteration.
>
> As pointed out by Ray Jui, there is a related problem in the
> way we deal with the loop running into the limit, as we just
> keep going there with an invalid counter data, so instead we
> now propagate a -ETIMEDOUT result to the caller.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> Link: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9174261/
> ---
> Originally sent this as a warning fix only on June 13, this
> version actually fixes the incorrect data problem.
> ---
> drivers/clocksource/bcm_kona_timer.c | 16 ++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/bcm_kona_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/bcm_kona_timer.c
> index 7e3fd375a627..92f6e4deee74 100644
> --- a/drivers/clocksource/bcm_kona_timer.c
> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/bcm_kona_timer.c
> @@ -66,10 +66,10 @@ static void kona_timer_disable_and_clear(void __iomem *base)
>
> }
>
> -static void
> +static int
> kona_timer_get_counter(void __iomem *timer_base, uint32_t *msw, uint32_t *lsw)
> {
> - int loop_limit = 4;
> + int loop_limit = 3;
>
> /*
> * Read 64-bit free running counter
> @@ -83,18 +83,19 @@ kona_timer_get_counter(void __iomem *timer_base, uint32_t *msw, uint32_t *lsw)
> * if new hi-word is equal to previously read hi-word then stop.
> */
>
> - while (--loop_limit) {
> + do {
> *msw = readl(timer_base + KONA_GPTIMER_STCHI_OFFSET);
> *lsw = readl(timer_base + KONA_GPTIMER_STCLO_OFFSET);
> if (*msw == readl(timer_base + KONA_GPTIMER_STCHI_OFFSET))
> break;
> - }
> + } while (--loop_limit);
> if (!loop_limit) {
> pr_err("bcm_kona_timer: getting counter failed.\n");
> pr_err(" Timer will be impacted\n");
> + return -ETIMEDOUT;
> }
>
> - return;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> static int kona_timer_set_next_event(unsigned long clc,
> @@ -112,8 +113,11 @@ static int kona_timer_set_next_event(unsigned long clc,
>
> uint32_t lsw, msw;
> uint32_t reg;
> + int ret;
>
> - kona_timer_get_counter(timers.tmr_regs, &msw, &lsw);
> + ret = kona_timer_get_counter(timers.tmr_regs, &msw, &lsw);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
>
> /* Load the "next" event tick value */
> writel(lsw + clc, timers.tmr_regs + KONA_GPTIMER_STCM0_OFFSET);
>
The change looks good to me! Thanks!
Acked-by: Ray Jui <ray.jui@...adcom.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists