Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] iommu/rockchip: add multi irqs support

Heiko Stuebner
2017-07-21T07:07:42Z

Am Freitag, 21. Juli 2017, 14:27:09 CEST schrieb Simon Xue:
> From: Simon <xxm@rock-chips.com>
>
> RK3368 vpu mmu have two irqs, this patch support multi irqs
>
> Signed-off-by: Simon <xxm@rock-chips.com>
> ---
> changes since V1:
> - use devm_kcalloc instead of devm_kzalloc when alloc irq array
>
> drivers/iommu/rockchip-iommu.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/iommu/rockchip-iommu.c b/drivers/iommu/rockchip-iommu.c
> index 4ba48a2..3c462c0 100644
> --- a/drivers/iommu/rockchip-iommu.c
> +++ b/drivers/iommu/rockchip-iommu.c
> @@ -90,7 +90,8 @@ struct rk_iommu {
> struct device *dev;
> void __iomem **bases;
> int num_mmu;
> - int irq;
> + int *irq;
> + int num_irq;
> struct iommu_device iommu;
> struct list_head node; /* entry in rk_iommu_domain.iommus */
> struct iommu_domain *domain; /* domain to which iommu is attached */
> @@ -825,10 +826,12 @@ static int rk_iommu_attach_device(struct iommu_domain *domain,
>
> iommu->domain = domain;
>
> - ret = devm_request_irq(iommu->dev, iommu->irq, rk_iommu_irq,
> - IRQF_SHARED, dev_name(dev), iommu);
> - if (ret)
> - return ret;
> + for (i = 0; i < iommu->num_irq; i++) {
> + ret = devm_request_irq(iommu->dev, iommu->irq[i], rk_iommu_irq,
> + IRQF_SHARED, dev_name(dev), iommu);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> + }
>
> for (i = 0; i < iommu->num_mmu; i++) {
> rk_iommu_write(iommu->bases[i], RK_MMU_DTE_ADDR,
> @@ -878,7 +881,8 @@ static void rk_iommu_detach_device(struct iommu_domain *domain,
> }
> rk_iommu_disable_stall(iommu);
>
> - devm_free_irq(iommu->dev, iommu->irq, iommu);
> + for (i = 0; i < iommu->num_irq; i++)
> + devm_free_irq(iommu->dev, iommu->irq[i], iommu);
>
> iommu->domain = NULL;
>
> @@ -1157,10 +1161,20 @@ static int rk_iommu_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> if (iommu->num_mmu == 0)
> return PTR_ERR(iommu->bases[0]);
>
> - iommu->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> - if (iommu->irq < 0) {
> - dev_err(dev, "Failed to get IRQ, %d\n", iommu->irq);
> - return -ENXIO;
> + while (platform_get_irq(pdev, iommu->num_irq) >= 0)
> + iommu->num_irq++;

Hmm, this could also result in a iommu having 0 irqs if wrongly
configured and probe would still suceed. This sounds somehow
wrong to me.

But I'm not sure if there is precedent on how to handle a variable
number of interrupts correctly somewhere.

Heiko

> +
> + iommu->irq = devm_kcalloc(dev, iommu->num_irq, sizeof(*iommu->irq),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!iommu->irq)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < iommu->num_irq; i++) {
> + iommu->irq[i] = platform_get_irq(pdev, i);
> + if (iommu->irq[i] < 0) {
> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get IRQ, %d\n", iommu->irq[i]);
> + return -ENXIO;
> + }
> }
>
> err = iommu_device_sysfs_add(&iommu->iommu, dev, NULL, dev_name(dev));
>