lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] pinctrl: st: Fix Sparse error
From
Hi Srini,

Thanks for review.

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Srinivas Kandagatla
<srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 29/09/14 14:48, Pramod Gurav wrote:
>>
>> This change fixes below sparse error,
>> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c:1515:31: error: incompatible types for
>> operation (>)
>> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c:1515:31: left side has type void [noderef]
>> <asn:2>*irqmux_base
>> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c:1515:31: right side has type int
>>
>> The fix is done by removing a check on info->irqmux_base as
>> info->irqmux_base has already been checked for error when allocating it.
>> Hence there is no need to redo the check.
>>
>> Cc: Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@st.com>
>> Cc: Patrice Chotard <patrice.chotard@st.com>
>> CC: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
>> Cc: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Pramod Gurav <pramod.gurav@smartplayin.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c
>> index 5475374..ddeaeda 100644
>> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c
>> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c
>> @@ -1512,7 +1512,7 @@ static int st_gpiolib_register_bank(struct
>> st_pinctrl *info,
>> gpio_irq,
>> st_gpio_irq_handler);
>> }
>>
>> - if (info->irqmux_base > 0 || gpio_irq > 0) {
>> + if (gpio_irq > 0) {
>> err = gpiochip_irqchip_add(&bank->gpio_chip,
>> &st_gpio_irqchip,
>> 0, handle_simple_irq,
>> IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW);
>
>
> This is not the correct fix. Please see why irqmux_base and gpio_irq are
> used in the driver.
> You are breaking the logic here...
>
> please read the below comment from the code.
>
> /**
> * GPIO bank can have one of the two possible types of
> * interrupt-wirings.
> *
> * First type is via irqmux, single interrupt is used by multiple
> * gpio banks. This reduces number of overall interrupts numbers
> * required. All these banks belong to a single pincontroller.
> * _________
> * | |----> [gpio-bank (n) ]
> * | |----> [gpio-bank (n + 1)]
> * [irqN]-- | irq-mux |----> [gpio-bank (n + 2)]
> * | |----> [gpio-bank (... )]
> * |_________|----> [gpio-bank (n + 7)]
> *
> * Second type has a dedicated interrupt per each gpio bank.
> *
> * [irqN]----> [gpio-bank (n)]
> */
>
>
> so irqmux_base is first type and gpio_irq is second type.
> if you remove check for irqmux_base here you would end up NOT adding irqchip
> the gpiochip in first type so you break the existing logic here.
>
>
Thanks for this nice explanation.

> I think the correct fix is:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c
> index 5475374..4060c30 100644
> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c
> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-st.c
> @@ -1512,7 +1512,7 @@ static int st_gpiolib_register_bank(struct st_pinctrl
> *info,
> gpio_irq, st_gpio_irq_handler);
> }
>
> - if (info->irqmux_base > 0 || gpio_irq > 0) {
> + if (!IS_ERR(info->irqmux_base) || gpio_irq > 0) {
> err = gpiochip_irqchip_add(&bank->gpio_chip,
But if I am not wrong in function st_pctl_probe_dt, This is already done:

if (IS_ERR(info->irqmux_base))
return PTR_ERR(info->irqmux_base);

That is the reason I thought there is no need to recheck the pointer
info->irqmux_base.
Am I misunderstanding something?
> &st_gpio_irqchip,
> 0, handle_simple_irq,
> IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW);
>
>
> Thanks,
> srini
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



--
Thanks and Regards
Pramod


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-09-29 17:21    [W:0.069 / U:0.448 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site