[PATCH 4/9] iommu/arm-smmu: Check for num_context_irqs > 0 to avoid divide by zero exception

[andreas.herrmann@calxeda.com (Andreas Herrmann)]

On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 06:23:07AM -0400, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 10:03:48AM +0100, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 04:41:54AM -0400, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:36:16PM +0100, Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
> > > > index 4307fbc..de9dd60 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
> > > > @@ -1822,7 +1822,11 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_dt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > >  			 num_irqs, smmu->num_global_irqs);
> > > >  		smmu->num_global_irqs = num_irqs;
> > > >  	}
> > > > -	smmu->num_context_irqs = num_irqs - smmu->num_global_irqs;
> > > 
> > > Why are you deleting this line?
> > 
> > Because I felt it's redundant in some cases and erroneously I thought
> > it could be bogus if num_irqs < num_global_irqs.
> > Of course the latter is wrong, as num_global_irqs is corrected two
> > lines above.
> > 
> > Now I think it's always redundant. num_context_irqs is only
> > incremented here
> > 
> >                if (num_irqs > smmu->num_global_irqs)
> >                         smmu->num_context_irqs++;
> 
> Yes, I think you're right. This leaves us in a situation where getting the
> #global-interrupts property wrong will trigger a warning followed
> immediately by a failure to probe. That means we could simply augment the
> current check and make it fatal instead:
> 
> --->8
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
> index 2931921..03ffbae 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/arm-smmu.c
> @@ -1799,12 +1799,11 @@ static int arm_smmu_device_dt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>                         smmu->num_context_irqs++;
>         }
>  
> -       if (num_irqs < smmu->num_global_irqs) {
+         /* expect num_global_irqs plus at least 1 context interrupt */
> +       if (num_irqs <= smmu->num_global_irqs) {
>                 dev_warn(dev, "found %d interrupts but expected at least %d\n",
> -                        num_irqs, smmu->num_global_irqs);
> -               smmu->num_global_irqs = num_irqs;
> +                        num_irqs, smmu->num_global_irqs + 1);
> +               return -ENODEV;
>         }
> -       smmu->num_context_irqs = num_irqs - smmu->num_global_irqs;
>  
>         smmu->irqs = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*smmu->irqs) * num_irqs,
>                                   GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> 8<---
> 
> What do you think?

Yes, that should suffice.

I know it's clear for us but what about a short comment to emphasize
that we expect to find at least one context irq?

-       if (num_irqs < smmu->num_global_irqs) {
+       /* expect num_global_irqs plus at least one context irq */
+       if (num_irqs <= smmu->num_global_irqs) {

which can be translated to

-       if (num_irqs < smmu->num_global_irqs) {
+       if (!smmu->num_context_irqs) {


I don't care -- every version is fine (at least I know what to look
for, if this warning message shows up). Most important thing is that a
wrong DT should not cause a division by zero in the driver.


Andreas