Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] irqchip: Add the Sophgo SG2042 MSI interrupt controller

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 03:12:00PM +0800, Chen Wang wrote:
> +static void sg2042_msi_irq_ack(struct irq_data *d)
> +{
> +	struct sg2042_msi_data *data  = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(d);
> +	int bit_off = d->hwirq - data->irq_first;
> +
> +	writel(1 << bit_off, (unsigned int *)data->reg_clr);
> +
> +	irq_chip_ack_parent(d);
> +}
> +
> +static void sg2042_msi_irq_compose_msi_msg(struct irq_data *data,
> +					   struct msi_msg *msg)
> +{
> +	struct sg2042_msi_data *priv = irq_data_get_irq_chip_data(data);
> +
> +	msg->address_hi = upper_32_bits(priv->doorbell_addr);
> +	msg->address_lo = lower_32_bits(priv->doorbell_addr);
> +	msg->data = 1 << (data->hwirq - priv->irq_first);
> +
> +	pr_debug("%s hwirq[%ld]: address_hi[%#x], address_lo[%#x], data[%#x]\n",
> +		 __func__, data->hwirq, msg->address_hi, msg->address_lo, msg->data);

Don't print addresses, it is useless - it will be a constant.

> +}
> +
> +static struct irq_chip sg2042_msi_middle_irq_chip = {
> +	.name			= "SG2042 MSI",
> +	.irq_ack		= sg2042_msi_irq_ack,
> +	.irq_mask		= irq_chip_mask_parent,
> +	.irq_unmask		= irq_chip_unmask_parent,
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +	.irq_set_affinity	= irq_chip_set_affinity_parent,
> +#endif
> +	.irq_compose_msi_msg	= sg2042_msi_irq_compose_msi_msg,
> +};

...

> +static int sg2042_msi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +	struct of_phandle_args args = {};
> +	struct sg2042_msi_data *data;
> +	int ret;
> +
> +	data = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(struct sg2042_msi_data), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!data)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	data->reg_clr = devm_platform_ioremap_resource_byname(pdev, "clr");
> +	if (IS_ERR(data->reg_clr)) {
> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to map clear register\n");
> +		return PTR_ERR(data->reg_clr);
> +	}
> +
> +	if (of_property_read_u64(pdev->dev.of_node, "sophgo,msi-doorbell-addr",
> +				 &data->doorbell_addr)) {
> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Unable to parse MSI doorbell addr\n");
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}
> +
> +	ret = of_parse_phandle_with_args(pdev->dev.of_node, "msi-ranges",
> +					 "#interrupt-cells", 0, &args);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Unable to parse MSI vec base\n");
> +		return ret;
> +	}

You leak the phandle. You leak much more, btw...

> +	data->irq_first = (u32)args.args[0];
> +
> +	ret = of_property_read_u32_index(pdev->dev.of_node, "msi-ranges",
> +					 args.args_count + 1, &data->num_irqs);
> +	if (ret) {
> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Unable to parse MSI vec number\n");
> +		return ret;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (data->irq_first < SG2042_VECTOR_MIN ||
> +	    (data->irq_first + data->num_irqs - 1) > SG2042_VECTOR_MAX) {
> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "msi-ranges is incorrect!\n");
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +	}
> +
> +	mutex_init(&data->msi_map_lock);
> +
> +	data->msi_map = bitmap_zalloc(data->num_irqs, GFP_KERNEL);

This also leaks during removal.

> +	if (!data->msi_map)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	ret = sg2042_msi_init_domains(data, pdev->dev.of_node);
> +	if (ret)
> +		bitmap_free(data->msi_map);
> +
> +	return ret;
> +}
> +
> +static const struct of_device_id sg2042_msi_of_match[] = {
> +	{ .compatible	= "sophgo,sg2042-msi" },
> +	{}
> +};
> +
> +static struct platform_driver sg2042_msi_driver = {
> +	.driver = {
> +		.name		= "sg2042-msi",
> +		.of_match_table	= of_match_ptr(sg2042_msi_of_match),

Drop of_match_ptr(), unnecessary and might lead to warnings even if this
is not a module.

Best regards,
Krzysztof