Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] irqchip/gic: common: add support to device tree based quirks

[Srinivas Kandagatla]

On 10/12/18 10:55, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >   
> > +void gic_enable_of_quirks(const struct device_node *np,
> > +			  const struct gic_quirk *quirks, void *data)
> > +{
> > +	for (; quirks->desc; quirks++) {
> So you expect quirks->desc to be NULL at some point, just like for any
> other quirk table we have.
>
> > +		if (!of_device_is_compatible(np, quirks->compatible))
> > +			continue;
> > +		if (quirks->init(data))
> > +			pr_info("GIC: enabling workaround for %s\n",
> > +				quirks->desc);
> > +	}
> > +}
> > +
> >   void gic_enable_quirks(u32 iidr, const struct gic_quirk *quirks,
> >   		void *data)
> >   {
> > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-common.h b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-common.h
> > index 3919cd7c5285..97e58fb6c232 100644
> > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-common.h
> > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-common.h
> > @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
> >   
> >   struct gic_quirk {
> >   	const char *desc;
> > +	const char *compatible;
> >   	bool (*init)(void *data);
> >   	u32 iidr;
> >   	u32 mask;
> > @@ -35,6 +36,8 @@ void gic_dist_config(void __iomem *base, int gic_irqs,
> >   void gic_cpu_config(void __iomem *base, void (*sync_access)(void));
> >   void gic_enable_quirks(u32 iidr, const struct gic_quirk *quirks,
> >   		void *data);
> > +void gic_enable_of_quirks(const struct device_node *np,
> > +			  const struct gic_quirk *quirks, void *data);
> >   
> >   void gic_set_kvm_info(const struct gic_kvm_info *info);
> >   
> > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> > index 29e9d47be97d..c95796fa4de6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c
> > @@ -1271,6 +1271,9 @@ static void __init gic_of_setup_kvm_info(struct device_node *node)
> >   	gic_set_kvm_info(&gic_v3_kvm_info);
> >   }
> >   
> > +static const struct gic_quirk gic_quirks[] = {
> > +};
> ... and yet here you provide an empty table. That's not going to work
> very well. You definitely need to have an empty entry at the end of the
> array, always.
>
> I guess you want to test your code on a non affected platform, and I'm
> pretty sure you'll see it exploding.

Yes, Should have carefully looked at this!!
We need an empty entry at the end!
I will fix it and send a new version!

Thanks,
srini
>