On Wed, 24 Mar 2021, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:29:31AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Tue, 23 Mar 2021, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > Allow interrupts to be MSI if supported by hardware. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > v2: new patch > > > drivers/mfd/intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c | 21 +++++++++++++++------ > > > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c > > > b/drivers/mfd/intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c > > > index 52728a963c17..16ce9cb3aa2f 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/mfd/intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c > > > +++ b/drivers/mfd/intel_quark_i2c_gpio.c > > > @@ -169,8 +169,8 @@ static int intel_quark_i2c_setup(struct pci_dev > > > *pdev, struct mfd_cell *cell) > > > res[INTEL_QUARK_IORES_MEM].end = > > > pci_resource_end(pdev, MFD_I2C_BAR); > > > > > > - res[INTEL_QUARK_IORES_IRQ].start = pdev->irq; > > > - res[INTEL_QUARK_IORES_IRQ].end = pdev->irq; > > > + res[INTEL_QUARK_IORES_IRQ].start = pci_irq_vector(pdev, 0); > > > + res[INTEL_QUARK_IORES_IRQ].end = pci_irq_vector(pdev, 0); > > > > > > pdata = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*pdata), GFP_KERNEL); > > > if (!pdata) > > > @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ static int intel_quark_gpio_setup(struct pci_dev > > > *pdev, struct mfd_cell *cell) > > > pdata->properties->idx = 0; > > > pdata->properties->ngpio = INTEL_QUARK_MFD_NGPIO; > > > pdata->properties->gpio_base = INTEL_QUARK_MFD_GPIO_BASE; > > > - pdata->properties->irq[0] = pdev->irq; > > > + pdata->properties->irq[0] = pci_irq_vector(pdev, 0); > > > > > > cell->platform_data = pdata; > > > cell->pdata_size = sizeof(*pdata); > > > @@ -245,22 +245,30 @@ static int intel_quark_mfd_probe(struct pci_dev > > > *pdev, > > > if (ret) > > > return ret; > > > > > > + pci_set_master(pdev); > > > + > > > + ret = pci_alloc_irq_vectors(pdev, 1, 1, PCI_IRQ_ALL_TYPES); > > > > Is there any way these magic number can be defined or sizeof()'ed? > > Grep for it in the kernel, it's rarely defined.
I already did. It is sometimes defined, other times not. Also, past acceptance does not guarantee ideal/correct usage. > The semantic is min-max range and having two defines (*) here for these seems > to me as an utter overkill. > > Of course, if you insist I may do it. > > *) since value is the same, we might have one definition, but it will be even > more confusion to have it as a min and max at the same time. It's just tricky to decypher for people who do not know the API, which is most people, myself included. For APIs like usleep_range() et al., obviously this makes no sense at all. What defines a vector? -- Lee Jones [李琼斯] Senior Technical Lead - Developer Services Linaro.org │ Open source software for Arm SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
