Hi Marc,
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 09:44:49AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 08/02/16 09:16, Antoine Tenart wrote:
> > +
> > +/* MSIX message address format: local GIC target */
> > +#define ALPINE_MSIX_SPI_TARGET_CLUSTER0 BIT(16)
> > +
> > +struct alpine_msix_data {
> > + spinlock_t msi_map_lock;
> > + u32 addr_high;
> > + u32 addr_low;
>
> As this looks to be a physical address, please consider using phys_addr_t.
Sure.
[…]
> > +static int alpine_msix_init(struct device_node *node,
> > + struct device_node *parent)
> > +{
> > + struct alpine_msix_data *priv;
> > + struct resource res;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + priv = kzalloc(sizeof(*priv), GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!priv)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > + spin_lock_init(&priv->msi_map_lock);
> > +
> > + ret = of_address_to_resource(node, 0, &res);
> > + if (ret) {
> > + pr_err("Failed to allocate resource\n");
> > + goto err_priv;
> > + }
> > +
> > + priv->addr_high = upper_32_bits((u64)res.start);
> > + priv->addr_low = lower_32_bits(res.start) +
> > ALPINE_MSIX_SPI_TARGET_CLUSTER0;
>
> This is a bit odd. If you always set bit 16, why isn't that reflected in
> the base address coming from the DT?
The 20 least significant bits of addr_low provide direct information
regarding the interrupt destination, so I thought it would be clearer
to have this explicitly in the driver so that we know what those bits
mean.
What do you think?
Thanks for the review!
Antoine
--
Antoine Ténart, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
