[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <89058c7c-1fed-60ea-7233-04187772a931@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 11:43:27 +0530
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, suzuki.poulose@....com
Cc: Sami Mujawar <sami.mujawar@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Mike Leach <mike.leach@...aro.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
coresight@...ts.linaro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 1/4] arm_pmu: acpi: Refactor
arm_spe_acpi_register_device()
On 8/3/23 11:26, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> + /*
> + * Sanity check all the GICC tables for the same interrupt
> + * number. For now, only support homogeneous ACPI machines.
> + */
> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> + struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *gicc;
> +
> + gicc = acpi_cpu_get_madt_gicc(cpu);
> + if (gicc->header.length < len)
> + return gsi ? -ENXIO : 0;
> +
> + this_gsi = parse_gsi(gicc);
> + if (!this_gsi)
> + return gsi ? -ENXIO : 0;
Hello Will,
Moved parse_gsi() return code checking to its original place just to
make it similar in semantics to existing 'gicc->header.length check'.
If 'gsi' is valid i.e atleast a single cpu has been probed, return
-ENXIO indicating mismatch, otherwise just return 0.
- Anshuman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists