linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] soc: ti: smartreflex: Use platform_get_irq

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: <CA+V-a8unRn=TJSnikVJffB3ebQn7RofoCn2yDLne15gW-ch9Yg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 21 Dec 2021 19:28:22 +0000
From:   "Lad, Prabhakar" <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>
To:     Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>
Cc:     Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        SantoshShilimkarssantosh@...nel.org,
        Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        Linux OMAP Mailing List <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: ti: smartreflex: Use platform_get_irq_optional() to
 get the interrupt

Hi Nishanth,

Thank you for the review.

On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 1:31 PM Nishanth Menon <nm@...com> wrote:
>
> On 15:39-20211218, Lad Prabhakar wrote:
> > platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_IRQ, ..) relies on static
> > allocation of IRQ resources in DT core code, this causes an issue
> > when using hierarchical interrupt domains using "interrupts" property
> > in the node as this bypasses the hierarchical setup and messes up the
> > irq chaining.
> >
> > In preparation for removal of static setup of IRQ resource from DT core
> > code use platform_get_irq_optional().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>
> > ---
> > Hi,
> >
> > Dropping usage of platform_get_resource() was agreed based on
> > the discussion [0].
> >
> > [0] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-renesas-soc/
> > patch/20211209001056.29774-1-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com/
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Prabhakar
> > ---
> >  drivers/soc/ti/smartreflex.c | 12 +++++++-----
> >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/soc/ti/smartreflex.c b/drivers/soc/ti/smartreflex.c
> > index b5b2fa538d5c..4f311e00fa46 100644
> > --- a/drivers/soc/ti/smartreflex.c
> > +++ b/drivers/soc/ti/smartreflex.c
> > @@ -819,7 +819,7 @@ static int omap_sr_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >  {
> >       struct omap_sr *sr_info;
> >       struct omap_sr_data *pdata = pdev->dev.platform_data;
> > -     struct resource *mem, *irq;
> > +     struct resource *mem;
> >       struct dentry *nvalue_dir;
> >       int i, ret = 0;
> >
> > @@ -844,7 +844,12 @@ static int omap_sr_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >       if (IS_ERR(sr_info->base))
> >               return PTR_ERR(sr_info->base);
> >
> > -     irq = platform_get_resource(pdev, IORESOURCE_IRQ, 0);
> > +     ret = platform_get_irq_optional(pdev, 0);
> > +     if (ret <= 0 && ret != -ENXIO)
> > +             return ret ? ret : -ENXIO;
> ^^ minor: This is a better check compared to what existed, might be good
> to add that to commit message, also does this cause the driver to fail
> probe silently?
>
Yes, the probe will fail silently in case of error while getting an
interrupt if it exists in DT. Do you want me to add an error message
in case of an error? I'll be sending v2 anyway dropping the check for
IRQ0.

> > +     if (ret > 0)
> > +             sr_info->irq = ret;
> > +     ret = 0;
> >
> >       sr_info->fck = devm_clk_get(pdev->dev.parent, "fck");
> >       if (IS_ERR(sr_info->fck))
> > @@ -870,9 +875,6 @@ static int omap_sr_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >       sr_info->autocomp_active = false;
> >       sr_info->ip_type = pdata->ip_type;
> >
> > -     if (irq)
> > -             sr_info->irq = irq->start;
> > -
> >       sr_set_clk_length(sr_info);
> >
> >       list_add(&sr_info->node, &sr_list);
> > --
> > 2.17.1
> >
>
> Otherwise, looks fine to me. but it is a little late since I have sent out my
> 5.17 PR. We can try for rc OR 5.18.
>
rc should be OK, as there will be tree wide changes.

Cheers,
Prabhakar