[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230804163921.GE30679@willie-the-truck>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2023 17:39:21 +0100
From: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, suzuki.poulose@....com,
Sami Mujawar <sami.mujawar@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
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 Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 11:43:27AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>
>
> 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.
Wouldn't that still be the case without the check in this hunk? We'd run
into the homogeneous check and return -ENXIO from there, no?
Will
Powered by blists - more mailing lists