On 10/28, Josh Cartwright wrote:
> @@ -108,12 +111,17 @@ struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev {
>       void __iomem            *base;
>       void __iomem            *intr;
>       void __iomem            *cnfg;
> +     unsigned int            irq;
>       bool                    allow_wakeup;
>       spinlock_t              lock;
>       u8                      channel;
>       u8                      min_apid;
>       u8                      max_apid;
>       u32                     mapping_table[SPMI_MAPPING_TABLE_LEN];
> +     int                     bus_nr;

This looks unused.

> +     struct irq_domain       *domain;
> +     struct spmi_controller  *spmic;
> +     u16                     apid_to_ppid[256];
>  };
>  
>  static inline u32 pmic_arb_base_read(struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *dev, u32 
> offset)
[...]
> +
> +static void pmic_arb_chained_irq(unsigned int irq, struct irq_desc *desc)
> +{
> +     struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *pa = irq_get_handler_data(irq);
> +     struct irq_chip *chip = irq_get_chip(irq);
> +     void __iomem *intr = pa->intr;
> +     int first = pa->min_apid >> 5;
> +     int last = pa->max_apid >> 5;
> +     int i, id;
> +     u8 ee = 0; /*pa->owner;*/

TODO?

> +     u32 status;
> +
> +     chained_irq_enter(chip, desc);
> +
> +     for (i = first; i <= last; ++i) {
> +             status = readl_relaxed(intr + SPMI_PIC_OWNER_ACC_STATUS(ee, i));
> +             while (status) {
> +                     id = ffs(status) - 1;
> +                     status &= ~(1 << id);
> +                     periph_interrupt(pa, id + i * 32);
> +             }
> +     }
> +
> +     chained_irq_exit(chip, desc);
> +}
> +
[...]
> +static int qpnpint_irq_domain_dt_translate(struct irq_domain *d,
> +                                        struct device_node *controller,
> +                                        const u32 *intspec,
> +                                        unsigned int intsize,
> +                                        unsigned long *out_hwirq,
> +                                        unsigned int *out_type)
> +{
> +     struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *pa = d->host_data;
> +     struct spmi_pmic_arb_irq_spec spec;
> +     int err;
> +     u8 apid;
> +
> +     dev_dbg(&pa->spmic->dev,
> +             "intspec[0] 0x%1x intspec[1] 0x%02x intspec[2] 0x%02x\n",
> +             intspec[0], intspec[1], intspec[2]);
> +
> +     if (d->of_node != controller)
> +             return -EINVAL;
> +     if (intsize != 4)
> +             return -EINVAL;
> +     if (intspec[0] > 0xF || intspec[1] > 0xFF || intspec[2] > 0x7)
> +             return -EINVAL;
> +
> +     spec.slave = intspec[0];
> +     spec.per   = intspec[1];
> +     spec.irq   = intspec[2];
> +
> +     err = search_mapping_table(pa, &spec, &apid);
> +     if (err)
> +             return err;
> +
> +     pa->apid_to_ppid[apid] = spec.slave << 8 | spec.per;
> +
> +     /* Keep track of {max,min}_apid for bounding search during interrupt */
> +     if (apid > pa->max_apid)
> +             pa->max_apid = apid;
> +     if (apid < pa->min_apid)
> +             pa->min_apid = apid;

Ah makes sense now why we set this to the opposite values in
probe.  Please put a comment in patch 4 and maybe move that setup
in patch 4 to this patch.

> +
> +     *out_hwirq = spec.slave << 24
> +                | spec.per   << 16
> +                | spec.irq   << 8
> +                | apid;
> +     *out_type  = intspec[3] & IRQ_TYPE_SENSE_MASK;
> +
> +     dev_dbg(&pa->spmic->dev, "out_hwirq = %lu\n", *out_hwirq);
> +
> +     return 0;
> +}
> +
[...]
>  static int spmi_pmic_arb_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  {
>       struct spmi_pmic_arb_dev *pa;
>       struct spmi_controller *ctrl;
>       struct resource *res;
> -     int err, i;
> +     int err = 0, i;
>  
>       ctrl = spmi_controller_alloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*pa));
>       if (!ctrl)
>               return -ENOMEM;
>  
>       pa = spmi_controller_get_drvdata(ctrl);
> +     pa->spmic = ctrl;
>  
>       res = platform_get_resource_byname(pdev, IORESOURCE_MEM, "core");
>       pa->base = devm_ioremap_resource(&ctrl->dev, res);
> @@ -349,6 +679,12 @@ static int spmi_pmic_arb_probe(struct platform_device 
> *pdev)
>               goto err_put_ctrl;
>       }
>  
> +     pa->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> +     if (pa->irq < 0) {
> +             err = pa->irq;
> +             goto err_put_ctrl;
> +     }
> +
>       for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(pa->mapping_table); ++i)
>               pa->mapping_table[i] = readl_relaxed(
>                               pa->cnfg + SPMI_MAPPING_TABLE_REG(i));
> @@ -364,15 +700,30 @@ static int spmi_pmic_arb_probe(struct platform_device 
> *pdev)
>       ctrl->read_cmd = pmic_arb_read_cmd;
>       ctrl->write_cmd = pmic_arb_write_cmd;
>  
> +     dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "adding irq domain\n");
> +     pa->domain = irq_domain_add_tree(pdev->dev.of_node,
> +                                      &pmic_arb_irq_domain_ops, pa);
> +     if (!pa->domain) {
> +             dev_err(&pdev->dev, "unable to create irq_domain\n");
> +             goto err_put_ctrl;

Why do we silently ignore the error here? Is the irqchip
functionality optional? Setting err here should allow us to skip
intializing err to 0 up at the top of this function.

> +     }
> +
> +     irq_set_handler_data(pa->irq, pa);
> +     irq_set_chained_handler(pa->irq, pmic_arb_chained_irq);
> +
>       err = spmi_controller_add(ctrl);
>       if (err)
> -             goto err_put_ctrl;
> +             goto err_domain_remove;
>  
>       dev_dbg(&ctrl->dev, "PMIC Arb Version 0x%x\n",
>               pmic_arb_base_read(pa, PMIC_ARB_VERSION));
>  
>       return 0;
>  
> +err_domain_remove:
> +     irq_set_chained_handler(pa->irq, NULL);
> +     irq_set_handler_data(pa->irq, NULL);
> +     irq_domain_remove(pa->domain);
>  err_put_ctrl:
>       spmi_controller_put(ctrl);
>       return err;

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to