On Fri, 31 Jul 2015, Shenwei Wang wrote:
> +struct gpcv2_irqchip_data {
> + struct raw_spinlock rlock;
> + void __iomem *gpc_base;
> + u32 wakeup_sources[IMR_NUM];
> + u32 enabled_irqs[IMR_NUM];
> + u32 cpu2wakeup;
Can you please format that in a readable way?
struct raw_spinlock rlock;
void __iomem *gpc_base;
....
> +};
> +
> +static struct gpcv2_irqchip_data *imx_gpcv2_instance;
> +
> +u32 imx_gpcv2_get_wakeup_source(u32 **sources)
> +{
> + if (!imx_gpcv2_instance)
> + return 0;
> +
> + if (sources)
> + *sources = imx_gpcv2_instance->wakeup_sources;
> +
> + return IMR_NUM;
> +}
> +
> +static int gpcv2_wakeup_source_save(void)
> +{
> + struct gpcv2_irqchip_data *cd;
> + void __iomem *reg;
> + int i;
> +
> + cd = imx_gpcv2_instance;
> + if (!cd)
> + return 0;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < IMR_NUM; i++) {
> + reg = cd->gpc_base + cd->cpu2wakeup + i * 4;
> + cd->enabled_irqs[i] = readl_relaxed(reg);
You read the full state of the register and restore the full state. So
why enabled_irqs?
> + writel_relaxed(cd->wakeup_sources[i], reg);
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static void gpcv2_wakeup_source_restore(void)
> +{
> + struct gpcv2_irqchip_data *cd;
> + void __iomem *reg;
> + int i;
> +
> + cd = imx_gpcv2_instance;
> + if (!cd)
> + return;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < IMR_NUM; i++) {
> + reg = cd->gpc_base + cd->cpu2wakeup + i * 4;
> + writel_relaxed(cd->enabled_irqs[i], reg);
> + cd->wakeup_sources[i] = ~0;
Why are you clearing that info on resume? Drivers will clear that via
set_wake() or leave it when they want to have resume functionality?
> +static int __init imx_gpcv2_irqchip_init(struct device_node *node,
> + struct device_node *parent)
> +{
> + struct irq_domain *parent_domain, *domain;
> + struct gpcv2_irqchip_data *cd;
> + int i;
> +
> + if (!parent) {
> + pr_err("%s: no parent, giving up\n", node->full_name);
> + return -ENODEV;
> + }
> +
> + parent_domain = irq_find_host(parent);
> + if (!parent_domain) {
> + pr_err("%s: unable to get parent domain\n", node->full_name);
> + return -ENXIO;
> + }
> +
> + cd = kzalloc(sizeof(struct gpcv2_irqchip_data), GFP_KERNEL);
> + BUG_ON(!cd);
You return an error code for all other failures. Why BUG here?
Otherwise this looks very clean now. Can you please resend ASAP with
these minor points addressed?
Thanks,
tglx
--
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/
