Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 21 Apr 2022 11:06:54 +0200 | From | Borislav Petkov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V2 2/2] EDAC: synopsys: re-enable the interrupts in intr_handler for V3.X Synopsys EDAC DDR |
| |
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 09:53:13AM +0800, Sherry Sun wrote: > Since zynqmp_get_error_info() is called during CE/UE interrupt, at the
This also needs to be made human-readable: for example, "zynqmp_get_error_info() reads the error information from the registers when an interrupt for a {un-,}correctable error is raised."
> end of zynqmp_get_error_info(), it wirtes 0 to ECC_CLR_OFST, which cause
Unknown word [wirtes] in commit message. Suggestions: ['writes',
Please introduce a spellchecker into your patch creation workflow.
> the CE/UE interrupts of V3.X Synopsys EDAC DDR been disabled, then the
"which disables the error interrupts" - make it simple - no need for the V3.X marketing bla.
> interrupt handler will be called only once, so need to re-enable the
"Therefore, reenable the error interrupt line ..."
> interrupts at the end of intr_handler for V3.X Synopsys EDAC DDR.
I think you're catching my drift: our commit messages need to be understandable and when read months, years from now, still to make sense.
> Signed-off-by: Sherry Sun <sherry.sun@nxp.com> > Reviewed-by: Shubhrajyoti Datta <Shubhrajyoti.datta@xilinx.com> > Acked-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com> > --- > Changes in V2: > 1. Add the Reviewed-by and Acked-by tag. > 2. Add the newline as suggested by Michal. > --- > drivers/edac/synopsys_edac.c | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/edac/synopsys_edac.c b/drivers/edac/synopsys_edac.c > index 88a481043d4c..ae1cf02a92f5 100644 > --- a/drivers/edac/synopsys_edac.c > +++ b/drivers/edac/synopsys_edac.c > @@ -527,6 +527,8 @@ static void handle_error(struct mem_ctl_info *mci, struct synps_ecc_status *p) > memset(p, 0, sizeof(*p)); > } > > +static void enable_intr(struct synps_edac_priv *priv);
Why the forward declaration?
Why not simply move {enable,disable}_intr() upwards in that file?
Also, for both fixes: do you want them backported in stable kernels?
I think you do because they look like you'd want that v3.x support to work with older kernels too.
If so, read the section about "Fixes:" in Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst
Thx. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
| |