On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 04:07:25PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 06:21:07PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 02:40:12AM +0800, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:
If yes, why can't it simply be written like this ?
for (; i >= 0; i--, gtdt_frame--) { frame = &timer_mem->frame[gtdt_frame->frame_number];
/* not sure this check is actually needed */ if (gtdt_frame->common_flags & ACPI_GTDT_GT_IS_SECURE_TIMER) continue;
if (frame->phys_irq > 0) acpi_unregister_gsi(gtdt_frame->timer_interrupt); if (frame->virt_irq > 0) acpi_unregister_gsi(gtdt_frame->virtual_timer_interrupt); }
A reverse loop of this form will work.
That requires some restructuring, and care to avoid going out of bounds instantaneously with the gtdt_frame--, so as to not invoke nasal demons.
I've attacked this locally, and will send this out after testing. I'll drop the new ACPI API patch.
FWIW, I've set this up so the cleanup path is:
do { if (gtdt_frame->common_flags & ACPI_GTDT_GT_IS_SECURE_TIMER || gtdt_frame->frame_number >= ARCH_TIMER_MEM_MAX_FRAMES) continue;
frame = &timer_mem->frame[gtdt_frame->frame_number]; if (frame->phys_irq > 0) acpi_unregister_gsi(gtdt_frame->timer_interrupt); frame->phys_irq = 0; if (frame->virt_irq > 0) acpi_unregister_gsi(gtdt_frame->virtual_timer_interrupt); frame->virt_irq = 0;} while (i-- >= 0 && gtdt_frame--);
... the zeroing is to account for duplicate frames, which I now check for in the probe path (as we do for DT).
Can I take it per your comment on the prior version that with this change I can take your ack?
Yes, thanks for fixing it up, please add my:
Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com
I also assume that you're happy for all of the drivers/acpi/arm64/ patches in the series to go via the clocksource tree?
Yes that's how I expect them to go upstream, that's the simplest way.
Thanks ! Lorenzo