On 8/4/23 22:09, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Aug 03, 2023 at 11:43:27AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
On 8/3/23 11:26, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
- /*
* Sanity check all the GICC tables for the same interrupt* number. For now, only support homogeneous ACPI machines.*/- for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *gicc;gicc = acpi_cpu_get_madt_gicc(cpu);if (gicc->header.length < len)return gsi ? -ENXIO : 0;this_gsi = parse_gsi(gicc);if (!this_gsi)return gsi ? -ENXIO : 0;Hello Will,
Moved parse_gsi() return code checking to its original place just to make it similar in semantics to existing 'gicc->header.length check'. If 'gsi' is valid i.e atleast a single cpu has been probed, return -ENXIO indicating mismatch, otherwise just return 0.
Wouldn't that still be the case without the check in this hunk? We'd run into the homogeneous check and return -ENXIO from there, no?
Although the return code will be the same i.e -ENXIO, but not for the same reason.
this_gsi = parse_gsi(gicc); if (!this_gsi) return gsi ? -ENXIO : 0;
This returns 0 when IRQ could not be parsed for the first cpu, but returns -ENXIO for subsequent cpus. Although return code -ENXIO here still indicates IRQ parsing to have failed.
} else if (hetid != this_hetid || gsi != this_gsi) { pr_warn("ACPI: %s: must be homogeneous\n", pdev->name); return -ENXIO; }
This returns -ENXIO when there is a IRQ mismatch. But if the above check is not there, -ENXIO return code here could not be classified into IRQ parse problem or mismatch without looking into the IRQ value.
-
Anshuman Khandual