Re: [Patch v5 2/4] memory: tegra: Add MC error logging on tegra186 onward

[Ashish Mhetre]

On 3/19/2022 9:20 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> 16.03.2022 12:25, Ashish Mhetre пишет:
> > +irqreturn_t tegra30_mc_handle_irq(int irq, void *data)
> >   {
> >        struct tegra_mc *mc = data;
> >        unsigned long status;
> > +     bool mc_has_channels;
> >        unsigned int bit;
> > +     int channel;
>
> unsigned int
Okay, I will update in next version.

> > +     mc_has_channels = mc->soc->num_channels && mc->soc->get_int_channel;
> > +     if (mc_has_channels) {
> > +             int err;
> > +
> > +             err = mc->soc->get_int_channel(mc, &channel);
> > +             if (err < 0)
> > +                     return IRQ_NONE;
> > +
> > +             /* mask all interrupts to avoid flooding */
> > +             status = mc_ch_readl(mc, channel, MC_INTSTATUS) & mc->soc->intmask;
> > +     } else {
> > +             status = mc_readl(mc, MC_INTSTATUS) & mc->soc->intmask;
> > +     }
>
> So if mc_has_channels=false, while it should be true, then you're going
> to handle interrupt incorrectly?

I am not able to understand the case where this can happen?
num_channels and get_int_channels are both getting defined on T186
onwards where mc_has_channels is expected to be true.
Do you mean to say that we need to add more chip specific checks
in case of mc_has_channels is false?