On 09/03/2014 05:18 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2014, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> +static void bcm7120_l2_intc_irq_handle(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc
>> *desc)
>> +{
>> + struct bcm7120_l2_intc_data *b = irq_desc_get_handler_data(desc);
>> + struct irq_chip *chip = irq_desc_get_chip(desc);
>> + struct irq_chip_generic *gc = irq_get_domain_generic_chip(b->domain, 0);
>> + u32 status;
>> +
>> + chained_irq_enter(chip, desc);
>> +
>> + irq_gc_lock(gc);
>> + status = __raw_readl(b->base + IRQSTAT);
>> + irq_gc_unlock(gc);
>
> Why do you need locking around the status read out?
I was worried about potential concurrency issues, but I suppose that
this is just extra carefulness that brings nothing.
>
>> + for (irq = 0; irq < num_parent_irqs; irq++) {
>> + ret = bcm7120_l2_intc_init_one(dn, data, irq, map_mask);
>> + if (ret)
>> + continue;
>
> What's the exact purpose of this "if (ret)" construct?
It's pretty much useless the way it is now, I will rework that.
Thanks for the review!
--
Florian
--
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/
