| Message ID | 1543516016-28186-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Delegated to: | Eduardo Valentin |
| Headers | show |
| Series | thermal/drivers/hisi: Fix bad initialization | expand |
Sorry typo in Vincent's email address, fixed now. On 29/11/2018 19:26, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Without this patch, the thermal driver on hi6220 and hi3660 is broken. > > That is due because part of the posted patchset was merged but a small > change in the DT was dropped. > > The hi6220 and hi3660 do not have an interrupt name in the DT, so > finding interrupt by name fails. > > In addition, the hi3660 only defines one thermal zone in the DT and we > are trying to register two sensors assuming we have two thermal zones > in the DT. > > Fix this by adding a couple of line of code to add back compatibility > with older DT and change the sensors number to 1 for the hi3660. > > Fixes: 2cffaeff083f (thermal/drivers/hisi: Use platform_get_irq_byname) > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c | 11 ++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c b/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c > index c4111a9..3ab0e63 100644 > --- a/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c > +++ b/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c > @@ -424,7 +424,7 @@ static int hi3660_thermal_probe(struct hisi_thermal_data *data) > struct platform_device *pdev = data->pdev; > struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; > > - data->nr_sensors = 2; > + data->nr_sensors = 1; > > data->sensor = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*data->sensor) * > data->nr_sensors, GFP_KERNEL); > @@ -590,8 +590,13 @@ static int hisi_thermal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > } > > ret = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, sensor->irq_name); > - if (ret < 0) > - return ret; > + if (ret <= 0) { > + ret = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); > + if (ret <= 0) { > + dev_err(dev, "Failed get interrupt: %d\n", ret); > + return ret; > + } > + } > > ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, ret, NULL, > hisi_thermal_alarm_irq_thread, >
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 07:26:56PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > Without this patch, the thermal driver on hi6220 and hi3660 is broken. > > That is due because part of the posted patchset was merged but a small > change in the DT was dropped. > > The hi6220 and hi3660 do not have an interrupt name in the DT, so > finding interrupt by name fails. > > In addition, the hi3660 only defines one thermal zone in the DT and we > are trying to register two sensors assuming we have two thermal zones > in the DT. > > Fix this by adding a couple of line of code to add back compatibility > with older DT and change the sensors number to 1 for the hi3660. Is this a case of adding dt versioning for those nodes? > > Fixes: 2cffaeff083f (thermal/drivers/hisi: Use platform_get_irq_byname) > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> > --- > drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c | 11 ++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c b/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c > index c4111a9..3ab0e63 100644 > --- a/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c > +++ b/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c > @@ -424,7 +424,7 @@ static int hi3660_thermal_probe(struct hisi_thermal_data *data) > struct platform_device *pdev = data->pdev; > struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; > > - data->nr_sensors = 2; > + data->nr_sensors = 1; For bisectability (heh.. is that even a word?), would you please send one fix per patch? > > data->sensor = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*data->sensor) * > data->nr_sensors, GFP_KERNEL); > @@ -590,8 +590,13 @@ static int hisi_thermal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > } > > ret = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, sensor->irq_name); > - if (ret < 0) > - return ret; > + if (ret <= 0) { Maybe a simple < is enough? reading it seams awkward. From a glance, I dont think platform_get_irq* ever returns 0. > + ret = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); > + if (ret <= 0) { Same here. > + dev_err(dev, "Failed get interrupt: %d\n", ret); > + return ret; > + } > + } > > ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, ret, NULL, > hisi_thermal_alarm_irq_thread, > -- > 2.7.4 >
On 29/11/2018 20:36, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 07:26:56PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> Without this patch, the thermal driver on hi6220 and hi3660 is broken. >> >> That is due because part of the posted patchset was merged but a small >> change in the DT was dropped. >> >> The hi6220 and hi3660 do not have an interrupt name in the DT, so >> finding interrupt by name fails. >> >> In addition, the hi3660 only defines one thermal zone in the DT and we >> are trying to register two sensors assuming we have two thermal zones >> in the DT. >> >> Fix this by adding a couple of line of code to add back compatibility >> with older DT and change the sensors number to 1 for the hi3660. > > Is this a case of adding dt versioning for those nodes? I'm not sure how to do that, can you point me to some code ? >> Fixes: 2cffaeff083f (thermal/drivers/hisi: Use platform_get_irq_byname) >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> >> --- >> drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c | 11 ++++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c b/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c >> index c4111a9..3ab0e63 100644 >> --- a/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c >> +++ b/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c >> @@ -424,7 +424,7 @@ static int hi3660_thermal_probe(struct hisi_thermal_data *data) >> struct platform_device *pdev = data->pdev; >> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; >> >> - data->nr_sensors = 2; >> + data->nr_sensors = 1; > > For bisectability (heh.. is that even a word?), would you please send > one fix per patch? I thought it was preferable to fix both into a single patch but if you prefer two different patches, no problem. >> >> data->sensor = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*data->sensor) * >> data->nr_sensors, GFP_KERNEL); >> @@ -590,8 +590,13 @@ static int hisi_thermal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> } >> >> ret = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, sensor->irq_name); >> - if (ret < 0) >> - return ret; >> + if (ret <= 0) { > > Maybe a simple < is enough? reading it seams awkward. From a glance, I > dont think platform_get_irq* ever returns 0. > >> + ret = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); >> + if (ret <= 0) { > > Same here. Actually, I'm not sure. of_irq_parse_and_map can return zero and it is an error. Concerning platform_get_irq() I don't know, the last line is: return r ? r->start : -ENXIO; Can 'start' be zero there? The usage is also unclear: git grep -C 1 platform_get_irq drivers/ drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c: irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); drivers/ata/libahci_platform.c- if (irq <= 0) { -- drivers/ata/pata_arasan_cf.c- /* if irq is 0, support only PIO */ drivers/ata/pata_arasan_cf.c: acdev->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); drivers/ata/pata_arasan_cf.c- if (acdev->irq) [...] drivers/ata/pata_rb532_cf.c- drivers/ata/pata_rb532_cf.c: irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); drivers/ata/pata_rb532_cf.c- if (irq <= 0) { -- drivers/ata/sata_highbank.c- drivers/ata/sata_highbank.c: irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); drivers/ata/sata_highbank.c- if (irq <= 0) { -- drivers/base/platform.c: while ((ret = platform_get_irq(dev, nr)) >= 0) drivers/base/platform.c- nr++; -- drivers/char/hw_random/imx-rngc.c- drivers/char/hw_random/imx-rngc.c: irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); drivers/char/hw_random/imx-rngc.c- if (irq <= 0) { -- drivers/char/hw_random/omap-rng.c- of_device_is_compatible(dev->of_node, "inside-secure,safexcel-eip76")) { drivers/char/hw_random/omap-rng.c: irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); drivers/char/hw_random/omap-rng.c- if (irq < 0) { etc... So in some places, if irq <= 0 (sata_highbank.c) it is considered an error, if irq is different from zero it is correct (pata_arasan_cf.c) and if it is >= 0 it is also correct (platform.c) May be Linus can clarify ? (added in Cc) >> + dev_err(dev, "Failed get interrupt: %d\n", ret); >> + return ret; >> + } >> + } >> >> ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, ret, NULL, >> hisi_thermal_alarm_irq_thread, >> -- >> 2.7.4 >>
diff --git a/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c b/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c index c4111a9..3ab0e63 100644 --- a/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c +++ b/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c @@ -424,7 +424,7 @@ static int hi3660_thermal_probe(struct hisi_thermal_data *data) struct platform_device *pdev = data->pdev; struct device *dev = &pdev->dev; - data->nr_sensors = 2; + data->nr_sensors = 1; data->sensor = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*data->sensor) * data->nr_sensors, GFP_KERNEL); @@ -590,8 +590,13 @@ static int hisi_thermal_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) } ret = platform_get_irq_byname(pdev, sensor->irq_name); - if (ret < 0) - return ret; + if (ret <= 0) { + ret = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0); + if (ret <= 0) { + dev_err(dev, "Failed get interrupt: %d\n", ret); + return ret; + } + } ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, ret, NULL, hisi_thermal_alarm_irq_thread,
Without this patch, the thermal driver on hi6220 and hi3660 is broken. That is due because part of the posted patchset was merged but a small change in the DT was dropped. The hi6220 and hi3660 do not have an interrupt name in the DT, so finding interrupt by name fails. In addition, the hi3660 only defines one thermal zone in the DT and we are trying to register two sensors assuming we have two thermal zones in the DT. Fix this by adding a couple of line of code to add back compatibility with older DT and change the sensors number to 1 for the hi3660. Fixes: 2cffaeff083f (thermal/drivers/hisi: Use platform_get_irq_byname) Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> --- drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c | 11 ++++++++--- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)