Am Freitag, 21. Juli 2017, 15:54:40 CEST schrieb xxm:
> Hi Heiko,
>
>
> On 07/21/2017 03:07 PM, Heiko Stuebner wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 21. Juli 2017, 14:27:09 CEST schrieb Simon Xue:
> >> From: Simon <x...@rock-chips.com>
> >>
> >> RK3368 vpu mmu have two irqs, this patch support multi irqs
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Simon <x...@rock-chips.com>
> >> ---
> >> changes since V1:
> >> - use devm_kcalloc instead of devm_kzalloc when alloc irq array
> >>
> >> drivers/iommu/rockchip-iommu.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> >> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/rockchip-iommu.c
> >> b/drivers/iommu/rockchip-iommu.c
> >> index 4ba48a2..3c462c0 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/iommu/rockchip-iommu.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/iommu/rockchip-iommu.c
> >> @@ -90,7 +90,8 @@ struct rk_iommu {
> >> struct device *dev;
> >> void __iomem **bases;
> >> int num_mmu;
> >> - int irq;
> >> + int *irq;
> >> + int num_irq;
> >> struct iommu_device iommu;
> >> struct list_head node; /* entry in rk_iommu_domain.iommus */
> >> struct iommu_domain *domain; /* domain to which iommu is attached */
> >> @@ -825,10 +826,12 @@ static int rk_iommu_attach_device(struct
> >> iommu_domain *domain,
> >>
> >> iommu->domain = domain;
> >>
> >> - ret = devm_request_irq(iommu->dev, iommu->irq, rk_iommu_irq,
> >> - IRQF_SHARED, dev_name(dev), iommu);
> >> - if (ret)
> >> - return ret;
> >> + for (i = 0; i < iommu->num_irq; i++) {
> >> + ret = devm_request_irq(iommu->dev, iommu->irq[i], rk_iommu_irq,
> >> + IRQF_SHARED, dev_name(dev), iommu);
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + return ret;
> >> + }
> >>
> >> for (i = 0; i < iommu->num_mmu; i++) {
> >> rk_iommu_write(iommu->bases[i], RK_MMU_DTE_ADDR,
> >> @@ -878,7 +881,8 @@ static void rk_iommu_detach_device(struct iommu_domain
> >> *domain,
> >> }
> >> rk_iommu_disable_stall(iommu);
> >>
> >> - devm_free_irq(iommu->dev, iommu->irq, iommu);
> >> + for (i = 0; i < iommu->num_irq; i++)
> >> + devm_free_irq(iommu->dev, iommu->irq[i], iommu);
> >>
> >> iommu->domain = NULL;
> >>
> >> @@ -1157,10 +1161,20 @@ static int rk_iommu_probe(struct platform_device
> >> *pdev)
> >> if (iommu->num_mmu == 0)
> >> return PTR_ERR(iommu->bases[0]);
> >>
> >> - iommu->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> >> - if (iommu->irq < 0) {
> >> - dev_err(dev, "Failed to get IRQ, %d\n", iommu->irq);
> >> - return -ENXIO;
> >> + while (platform_get_irq(pdev, iommu->num_irq) >= 0)
> >> + iommu->num_irq++;
> > Hmm, this could also result in a iommu having 0 irqs if wrongly
> > configured and probe would still suceed. This sounds somehow
> > wrong to me.
> >
> > But I'm not sure if there is precedent on how to handle a variable
> > number of interrupts correctly somewhere.
>
> How about add a judgement for iommu->num_irq ? like this:
> if (!iommu->num_irq)
> return -ENOXIO;
platform devices already have a function that gets you the number of irqs.
Re-using that is way better than open-coding it, so
iommu->num_irq = platform_irq_count(pdev);
if (iommu->num_irq < 0)
return iommu->num_irq;
if (iommu->num_irq == 0)
return -ENXIO;
Heiko
