On 04/09/2013 10:14:06 PM, Jia Hongtao-B38951 wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wood Scott-B07421
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:12 AM
> To: Jia Hongtao-B38951
> Cc: Wood Scott-B07421; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org;
> ga...@kernel.crashing.org; Li Yang-R58472
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] powerpc/MPIC: Add get_version API both for
> internal and external use
>
> On 04/09/2013 10:10:37 PM, Jia Hongtao-B38951 wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wood Scott-B07421
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 11:08 AM
> > > To: Jia Hongtao-B38951
> > > Cc: Wood Scott-B07421; linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org;
> > > ga...@kernel.crashing.org; Li Yang-R58472
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] powerpc/MPIC: Add get_version API both
for
> > > internal and external use
> > >
> > > On 04/09/2013 10:04:44 PM, Jia Hongtao-B38951 wrote:
> > > > Since all the functions including mpic_alloc() and
mpic_init() do
> > the
> > > > check for MPIC_FSL before using fsl_mpic_get_version() I'd
like
> > to add
> > > > check just for fsl_mpic_primary_get_version().
> > > >
> > > > It will be like this:
> > > > u32 fsl_mpic_primary_get_version(void)
> > > > {
> > > > struct mpic *mpic = mpic_primary;
> > > >
> > > > if (mpic && (mpic->flags & MPIC_FSL))
> > > > return fsl_mpic_get_version(mpic);
> > > >
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Could we reach an agreement here?
> > >
> > > Is there any particular reason? It would be more robust and
more
> > > consistent if the check were done in fsl_mpic_get_version().
> > >
> > > -Scott
> >
> > I found out that all the functions using fsl_mpic_get_version()
have
> > already done the check. Adding the check in fsl_mpic_get_version()
> > will cause duplicate check there. This is my consideration.
>
> Does that duplicate check cause any harm?
>
> -Scott
No harm at all just not necessary.
Not *necessary*, but makes it more robust and more consistent.
I wonder if I could add check in fsl_mpic_get_version() and remove
all the
check from functions in which using fsl_mpic_get_version()?
One of the two places that calls it is the place that maps thiscpuregs
in the first place, so no. :-)
The check in mpic_init() for the number of timers could perhaps have
the check removed if we're comfortable equating a version of zero with
a non-FSL MPIC. This really isn't something that's worth worrying
about, though.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev