[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADtm3G6VVthsOX7d_LHNtFdCvw+oiku=ATL8J-cBHBpLTVrpyg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 17:43:36 -0800
From: Gregory Fong <gregory.0xf0@...il.com>
To: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: mpic IRQ_TYPE_BOTH handling
Hi all,
In arch/powerpc/sysdev/mpic.c , it looks like IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH is
handled the same way as IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING:
static unsigned int mpic_type_to_vecpri(struct mpic *mpic, unsigned int type)
{
/* Now convert sense value */
switch(type & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK) {
case IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING:
return MPIC_INFO(VECPRI_SENSE_EDGE) |
MPIC_INFO(VECPRI_POLARITY_POSITIVE);
case IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING:
case IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH:
return MPIC_INFO(VECPRI_SENSE_EDGE) |
MPIC_INFO(VECPRI_POLARITY_NEGATIVE);
case IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH:
return MPIC_INFO(VECPRI_SENSE_LEVEL) |
MPIC_INFO(VECPRI_POLARITY_POSITIVE);
case IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW:
default:
return MPIC_INFO(VECPRI_SENSE_LEVEL) |
MPIC_INFO(VECPRI_POLARITY_NEGATIVE);
}
}
If IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH is unsupported, shouldn't we be returning an
error, instead of silently setting to use IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING?
Something like the following (sorry if the diff wraps weirdly, on
webmail at the moment):
----8<----
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/mpic.c b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/mpic.c
index b9aac95..5867ea2 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/sysdev/mpic.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/sysdev/mpic.c
@@ -876,6 +876,9 @@ int mpic_set_irq_type(struct irq_data *d, unsigned
int flow_type)
if (src >= mpic->num_sources)
return -EINVAL;
+ if (flow_type & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK == IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_BOTH)
+ return -EINVAL;
+
vold = mpic_irq_read(src, MPIC_INFO(IRQ_VECTOR_PRI));
/* We don't support "none" type */
---->8----
Thanks,
Gregory
Powered by blists - more mailing lists