[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c20818ab-9ed8-a26f-3298-9e5648b633ec@omp.ru>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 23:08:53 +0300
From: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] platform: finally disallow IRQ0 in platform_get_irq() and
its ilk
On 1/12/22 9:08 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
[...]
>>>> The commit a85a6c86c25b ("driver core: platform: Clarify that IRQ 0 is
>>>> invalid") only calls WARN() when IRQ0 is about to be returned, however
>>>> using IRQ0 is considered invalid (according to Linus) outside the arch/
>>>> code where it's used by the i8253 drivers. Many driver subsystems treat
>>>> 0 specially (e.g. as an indication of the polling mode by libata), so
>>>> the users of platform_get_irq[_byname]() in them would have to filter
>>>> out IRQ0 explicitly and this (quite obviously) doesn't scale...
>>>> Let's finally get this straight and return -EINVAL instead of IRQ0!
>>>>
>>>> Fixes: a85a6c86c25b ("driver core: platform: Clarify that IRQ 0 is invalid")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sergey Shtylyov <s.shtylyov@....ru>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> The patch is against the 'driver-core-linus' branch of Greg Kroah-Hartman's
>>>> 'driver-core.git' repo.
>>>>
>>>> drivers/base/platform.c | 6 ++++--
>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> Index: driver-core/drivers/base/platform.c
>>>> ===================================================================
>>>> --- driver-core.orig/drivers/base/platform.c
>>>> +++ driver-core/drivers/base/platform.c
>>>> @@ -231,7 +231,8 @@ int platform_get_irq_optional(struct pla
>>>> out_not_found:
>>>> ret = -ENXIO;
>>>> out:
>>>> - WARN(ret == 0, "0 is an invalid IRQ number\n");
>>>> + if (WARN(!ret, "0 is an invalid IRQ number\n"))
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> return ret;
>>>> }
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(platform_get_irq_optional);
>>>> @@ -445,7 +446,8 @@ static int __platform_get_irq_byname(str
>>>>
>>>> r = platform_get_resource_byname(dev, IORESOURCE_IRQ, name);
>>>> if (r) {
>>>> - WARN(r->start == 0, "0 is an invalid IRQ number\n");
>>>> + if (WARN(!r->start, "0 is an invalid IRQ number\n"))
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> return r->start;
>>>> }
>>>
>>> Geert recently mentioned that a few architectures (such as sh?) still
>>> use IRQ0 as something valid in limited cases.
>>>
>>> From my PoV, this patch is fine, but please be prepared to fix things
>>> in a couple of years when someone decides to boot a recent kernel on
>>> their pet dinosaur. With that in mind:
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
>>
>> Greg, so would that ACK be enough? Is there a chance this patch
>> gets finally included
>> into 5.17-rc1? Or should I look into fixing the recently found
>> arch/sh/ issue 1st (as you
>> can see, just WARN()'ing about IRQ0 wasn't enough to get this fixed)?
>
> Fixing SH would be a good thing.
Who argues with that? :-)
However, I don't think it should be a pre-requisite for this patch,
so that we have extra time until 5.17 final... actually, I had couple
quick workarounds in mind; the problem however is that we don't seem to
have the targets for testing... :-(
> Thanks,
>
> M.
MBR, Sergey
Powered by blists - more mailing lists