On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> wrote:
> 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.
Okay, will fix this.
--
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/
