On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Baolin Wang <baolin.w...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 15 December 2017 at 21:13, Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jo...@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> @@ -87,6 +88,30 @@ static struct syscon *of_syscon_register(struct
>>>> device_node *np)
>>>> if (ret)
>>>> reg_io_width = 4;
>>>>
>>>> + ret = of_hwspin_lock_get_id(np, 0);
>>>> + if (ret > 0) {
>>>> + syscon_config.hwlock_id = ret;
>>>> + syscon_config.hwlock_mode = HWLOCK_IRQSTATE;
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + switch (ret) {
>>>> + case -ENOENT:
>>>> + /* Ignore missing hwlock, it's optional. */
>>>> + break;
>>>> + case 0:
>>>> + /* In case of the HWSPINLOCK is not enabled. */
>>>> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HWSPINLOCK))
>>>> + break;
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = -EINVAL;
>>>> + /* fall-through */
>>>> + default:
>>>> + pr_err("Failed to retrieve valid hwlock: %d\n", ret);
>>>> + /* fall-through */
>>>> + case -EPROBE_DEFER:
>>>> + goto err_regmap;
>>>> + }
>>
>> The 'case 0' seems odd here, are we sure that this is always a failure?
>> From the of_hwspin_lock_get_id() definition it looks like zero might
>> be valid, and the !CONFIG_HWSPINLOCK implementation appears
>> to be written so that we should consider '0' valid but unused and
>> silently continue with that. If that is generally not the intended
>> use, it should probably return -EINVAL or something like that.
>
> Yes, 0 is valid for of_hwspin_lock_get_id(), but if we pass 'hwlock id
> = 0' to regmap, the regmap core will not regard it as a valid hwlock
> id to request the hwlock and will use default mutex lock instead of
> hwlock, which will cause problems. Meanwhile if we silently continue
> with case 0, users will not realize that they set one invalid hwlock
> id to regmap core, so here we regarded case 0 as one invalid id to
> print error messages for users.
Something else still seems wrong then: If regmap doesn't accept a zero
lock-id, then of_hwspin_lock_get_id() should never return that as a
valid ID, right?
Arnd
