If the function platform_get_irq() failed, the negative
value returned will not be detected here. So fix error
handling in bt_bmc_config_irq(). And if devm_request_irq()
failed, 'bt_bmc->irq' is assigned to zero maybe redundant,
it may be more suitable for using the correct negative values
to make the status check in the function bt_bmc_remove().
Signed-off-by: Shengju Zhang <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <[email protected]>
---
Changes from v1
- fix the code of status check
---
drivers/char/ipmi/bt-bmc.c | 11 +++++------
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/bt-bmc.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/bt-bmc.c
index cd0349bff..33d3a5d50 100644
--- a/drivers/char/ipmi/bt-bmc.c
+++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/bt-bmc.c
@@ -399,15 +399,14 @@ static int bt_bmc_config_irq(struct bt_bmc *bt_bmc,
struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
int rc;
- bt_bmc->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
- if (!bt_bmc->irq)
- return -ENODEV;
+ bt_bmc->irq = platform_get_irq_optional(pdev, 0);
+ if (bt_bmc->irq < 0)
+ return bt_bmc->irq;
rc = devm_request_irq(dev, bt_bmc->irq, bt_bmc_irq, IRQF_SHARED,
DEVICE_NAME, bt_bmc);
if (rc < 0) {
dev_warn(dev, "Unable to request IRQ %d\n", bt_bmc->irq);
- bt_bmc->irq = 0;
return rc;
}
@@ -474,7 +473,7 @@ static int bt_bmc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
bt_bmc_config_irq(bt_bmc, pdev);
- if (bt_bmc->irq) {
+ if (bt_bmc->irq >= 0) {
dev_info(dev, "Using IRQ %d\n", bt_bmc->irq);
} else {
dev_info(dev, "No IRQ; using timer\n");
@@ -500,7 +499,7 @@ static int bt_bmc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
struct bt_bmc *bt_bmc = dev_get_drvdata(&pdev->dev);
misc_deregister(&bt_bmc->miscdev);
- if (!bt_bmc->irq)
+ if (bt_bmc->irq < 0)
del_timer_sync(&bt_bmc->poll_timer);
return 0;
}
--
2.20.1.windows.1
On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 04:02:29PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote:
> If the function platform_get_irq() failed, the negative
> value returned will not be detected here. So fix error
> handling in bt_bmc_config_irq(). And if devm_request_irq()
> failed, 'bt_bmc->irq' is assigned to zero maybe redundant,
> it may be more suitable for using the correct negative values
> to make the status check in the function bt_bmc_remove().
You need to mention changing platform_get_irq to
platform_get_irq_optional in the header.
Another comment inline below.
Otherwise, this looks good.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shengju Zhang <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Tang Bin <[email protected]>
> ---
> Changes from v1
> - fix the code of status check
> ---
> drivers/char/ipmi/bt-bmc.c | 11 +++++------
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/ipmi/bt-bmc.c b/drivers/char/ipmi/bt-bmc.c
> index cd0349bff..33d3a5d50 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/ipmi/bt-bmc.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/ipmi/bt-bmc.c
> @@ -399,15 +399,14 @@ static int bt_bmc_config_irq(struct bt_bmc *bt_bmc,
> struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> int rc;
>
> - bt_bmc->irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
> - if (!bt_bmc->irq)
> - return -ENODEV;
> + bt_bmc->irq = platform_get_irq_optional(pdev, 0);
> + if (bt_bmc->irq < 0)
> + return bt_bmc->irq;
>
> rc = devm_request_irq(dev, bt_bmc->irq, bt_bmc_irq, IRQF_SHARED,
> DEVICE_NAME, bt_bmc);
> if (rc < 0) {
> dev_warn(dev, "Unable to request IRQ %d\n", bt_bmc->irq);
> - bt_bmc->irq = 0;
You need to set this to rc. Otherwise it will remain the interrupt
number assigned by platform_get_irq_optional().
-corey
> return rc;
> }
>
> @@ -474,7 +473,7 @@ static int bt_bmc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> bt_bmc_config_irq(bt_bmc, pdev);
>
> - if (bt_bmc->irq) {
> + if (bt_bmc->irq >= 0) {
> dev_info(dev, "Using IRQ %d\n", bt_bmc->irq);
> } else {
> dev_info(dev, "No IRQ; using timer\n");
> @@ -500,7 +499,7 @@ static int bt_bmc_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> struct bt_bmc *bt_bmc = dev_get_drvdata(&pdev->dev);
>
> misc_deregister(&bt_bmc->miscdev);
> - if (!bt_bmc->irq)
> + if (bt_bmc->irq < 0)
> del_timer_sync(&bt_bmc->poll_timer);
> return 0;
> }
> --
> 2.20.1.windows.1
>
>
>
Hi, Corey:
On 2020/4/18 21:49, Corey Minyard wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 04:02:29PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote:
>> If the function platform_get_irq() failed, the negative
>> value returned will not be detected here. So fix error
>> handling in bt_bmc_config_irq(). And if devm_request_irq()
>> failed, 'bt_bmc->irq' is assigned to zero maybe redundant,
>> it may be more suitable for using the correct negative values
>> to make the status check in the function bt_bmc_remove().
> You need to mention changing platform_get_irq to
> platform_get_irq_optional in the header.
>
> Another comment inline below.
>
> Otherwise, this looks good.
Got it. The v3 will be as follows：
If the function platform_get_irq() failed, the negative value
returned will not be detected here. So fix error handling in
bt_bmc_config_irq(). And in the function bt_bmc_probe(),
when get irq failed, it will print error message. So use
platform_get_irq_optional() to simplify code. Finally in the
function bt_bmc_remove() should make the right status
check if get irq failed.
>
> You need to set this to rc. Otherwise it will remain the interrupt
> number assigned by platform_get_irq_optional().
Yes, I think you are right. I'm not as considerate as you. Thank you for
your instruction.
When get irq failed, the 'bt_bmc->irq' is negative; when request irq
failed, the 'bt_bmc->irq = 0' is right.
So 'bt_bmc->irq <= 0' means irq failed.
Now let me rearrange the logic here:
In bt_bmc_probe():
bt_bmc_config_irq(bt_bmc, pdev);
if (bt_bmc->irq > 0) {
}
In bt_bmc_remove():
if (bt_bmc->irq <= 0)
del_timer_sync(&bt_bmc->poll_timer);
If you think this logic is correct, I'll submit v3.
Thanks,
Tang Bin
>
>
>
>
Hi, Corey:
On 2020/4/19 14:29, Tang Bin wrote:
> Hi, Corey:
>
> On 2020/4/18 21:49, Corey Minyard wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 04:02:29PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote:
>>> If the function platform_get_irq() failed, the negative
>>> value returned will not be detected here. So fix error
>>> handling in bt_bmc_config_irq(). And if devm_request_irq()
>>> failed, 'bt_bmc->irq' is assigned to zero maybe redundant,
>>> it may be more suitable for using the correct negative values
>>> to make the status check in the function bt_bmc_remove().
>> You need to mention changing platform_get_irq to
>> platform_get_irq_optional in the header.
>>
>> Another comment inline below.
>>
>> Otherwise, this looks good.
>
> Got it. The v3 will be as follows：
>
> If the function platform_get_irq() failed, the negative value
>
> returned will not be detected here. So fix error handling in
>
> bt_bmc_config_irq(). And in the function bt_bmc_probe(),
>
> when get irq failed, it will print error message. So use
>
> platform_get_irq_optional() to simplify code. Finally in the
>
> function bt_bmc_remove() should make the right status
>
> check if get irq failed.
>
>>
>> You need to set this to rc. Otherwise it will remain the interrupt
>> number assigned by platform_get_irq_optional().
>
> Yes, I think you are right. I'm not as considerate as you. Thank you
> for your instruction.
>
> When get irq failed, the 'bt_bmc->irq' is negative; when request irq
> failed, the 'bt_bmc->irq = 0' is right.
>
> So 'bt_bmc->irq <= 0' means irq failed.
>
> Now let me rearrange the logic here:
>
> In bt_bmc_probe():
>
> bt_bmc_config_irq(bt_bmc, pdev);
>
> if (bt_bmc->irq > 0) {
>
> }
>
>
> In bt_bmc_remove():
>
> if (bt_bmc->irq <= 0)
> del_timer_sync(&bt_bmc->poll_timer);
>
>
> If you think this logic is correct, I'll submit v3.
>
>
>
I know you're very busy, and you have handed me a lot before, so I
should wait for your reply.
But I don't know whether my above logic is correct, so I take the
liberty to write this email to you. I just wanted to say sorry for
disturbing you.
Thanks,
Tang Bin
On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 02:29:26PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote:
> Hi, Corey:
>
> On 2020/4/18 21:49, Corey Minyard wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 04:02:29PM +0800, Tang Bin wrote:
> > > If the function platform_get_irq() failed, the negative
> > > value returned will not be detected here. So fix error
> > > handling in bt_bmc_config_irq(). And if devm_request_irq()
> > > failed, 'bt_bmc->irq' is assigned to zero maybe redundant,
> > > it may be more suitable for using the correct negative values
> > > to make the status check in the function bt_bmc_remove().
> > You need to mention changing platform_get_irq to
> > platform_get_irq_optional in the header.
> >
> > Another comment inline below.
> >
> > Otherwise, this looks good.
>
> Got it. The v3 will be as follows：
>
> If the function platform_get_irq() failed, the negative value
>
> returned will not be detected here. So fix error handling in
>
> bt_bmc_config_irq(). And in the function bt_bmc_probe(),
>
> when get irq failed, it will print error message. So use
>
> platform_get_irq_optional() to simplify code. Finally in the
>
> function bt_bmc_remove() should make the right status
>
> check if get irq failed.
>
> >
> > You need to set this to rc. Otherwise it will remain the interrupt
> > number assigned by platform_get_irq_optional().
>
> Yes, I think you are right. I'm not as considerate as you. Thank you for
> your instruction.
>
> When get irq failed, the 'bt_bmc->irq' is negative; when request irq failed,
> the 'bt_bmc->irq = 0' is right.
>
> So 'bt_bmc->irq <= 0' means irq failed.
Sorry, I missed your question here and was waiting for v3.
Well, we want bt_bmc->irq < 0 to mean the irq request failed.
>
> Now let me rearrange the logic here:
>
> In bt_bmc_probe():
>
> bt_bmc_config_irq(bt_bmc, pdev);
>
> if (bt_bmc->irq > 0) {
Should be >= 0.
>
> }
>
>
> In bt_bmc_remove():
>
> if (bt_bmc->irq <= 0)
> del_timer_sync(&bt_bmc->poll_timer);
Should be < 0. But other than that, I think it's correct.
-corey
>
>
> If you think this logic is correct, I'll submit v3.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Tang Bin
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>