lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH V4 2/2] arm64: perf: add support for percpu pmu interrupt
From
On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 11:30 PM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 05:28:50PM +0000, Vinayak Kale wrote:
>> In Will's existing code, I think he was taking care of 'no IRQ' case
>> by comparing pmu_device->num_resources. Do you think this is not
>> enough and we must enforce the check after each platform_get_irq()?
>> Existing driver code snippet as below for quick reference.
>>
>> [snip]
>> static int
>> armpmu_reserve_hardware(struct arm_pmu *armpmu)
>> {
>> int i, err, irq, irqs;
>> struct platform_device *pmu_device = armpmu->plat_device;
>>
>> if (!pmu_device) {
>> pr_err("no PMU device registered\n");
>> return -ENODEV;
>> }
>>
>> irqs = min(pmu_device->num_resources, num_possible_cpus());
>> if (irqs < 1) {
>> pr_err("no irqs for PMUs defined\n");
>> return -ENODEV;
>> }
>
> This bit is fine.
>
>> for (i = 0; i < irqs; ++i) {
>> err = 0;
>> irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, i);
>> if (irq < 0)
>> continue;
>
> This is a bug, which you can fix in your patch. IRQ0 isn't valid.

Okay, will fix this.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-11-21 07:41    [W:0.062 / U:2.072 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site