On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 05:28:50PM +0000, Vinayak Kale wrote:
> In Will's existing code, I think he was taking care of 'no IRQ' case
> by comparing pmu_device->num_resources. Do you think this is not
> enough and we must enforce the check after each platform_get_irq()?
> Existing driver code snippet as below for quick reference.
>
> [snip]
> static int
> armpmu_reserve_hardware(struct arm_pmu *armpmu)
> {
> int i, err, irq, irqs;
> struct platform_device *pmu_device = armpmu->plat_device;
>
> if (!pmu_device) {
> pr_err("no PMU device registered\n");
> return -ENODEV;
> }
>
> irqs = min(pmu_device->num_resources, num_possible_cpus());
> if (irqs < 1) {
> pr_err("no irqs for PMUs defined\n");
> return -ENODEV;
> }
This bit is fine.
> for (i = 0; i < irqs; ++i) {
> err = 0;
> irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, i);
> if (irq < 0)
> continue;
This is a bug, which you can fix in your patch. IRQ0 isn't valid.
Will
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
