From patchwork Wed May 29 13:34:40 2024 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Jonathan Cameron X-Patchwork-Id: 799912 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88B6C17BB4; Wed, 29 May 2024 13:41:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716990093; cv=none; b=LNHrV9lOsDS171QzcWqFEftfmxNDbnaTazP+g13up6RthMT2t0y9z1Jgd1JikSUTcQ1XSragIsT71eEePhJHyH1rEzAmERhozvb1GWydmEl3M+8CUXEhL2PS1U/utV6iwgR3a1T9Z/UkYzgTW2W+eKjoQcysPck6KnqpEhmFE9I= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716990093; c=relaxed/simple; bh=XC2AfV3+IRVuErlXfReS96M7ywl4RO+B/FCDerWOMg0=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=iEIIc3OK7VVfERGd7uBod0IF/goxt7YsCDE8OSKRioaTY9oWdnfrXXEBh0L1dz7zenF+8Qxo6TMLFBDqLBkaIhQK9Xwsp69itZqIlyTC+YWIKpaHz8O58TOzFHqfXYqv4Bm28FCD1XprFpvP5fYicZsKFrk3fXNh6uQzeJJ77WY= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.31]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Vq9RZ1H1Bz6JBHQ; Wed, 29 May 2024 21:37:30 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.163.240]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEA3C140B2A; Wed, 29 May 2024 21:41:29 +0800 (CST) Received: from SecurePC-101-06.china.huawei.com (10.122.247.231) by lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Wed, 29 May 2024 14:41:29 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Marc Zyngier , Will Deacon , Catalin Marinas , , , , , CC: Mark Rutland , Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , , , Russell King , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Miguel Luis , James Morse , Salil Mehta , Jean-Philippe Brucker , Hanjun Guo , Gavin Shan , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , , , Subject: [PATCH v10 13/19] irqchip/gic-v3: Don't return errors from gic_acpi_match_gicc() Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 14:34:40 +0100 Message-ID: <20240529133446.28446-14-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.2 In-Reply-To: <20240529133446.28446-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> References: <20240529133446.28446-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml100001.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.183) To lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) From: James Morse gic_acpi_match_gicc() is only called via gic_acpi_count_gicr_regions(). It should only count the number of enabled redistributors, but it also tries to sanity check the GICC entry, currently returning an error if the Enabled bit is set, but the gicr_base_address is zero. Adding support for the online-capable bit to the sanity check will complicate it, for no benefit. The existing check implicitly depends on gic_acpi_count_gicr_regions() previous failing to find any GICR regions (as it is valid to have gicr_base_address of zero if the redistributors are described via a GICR entry). Instead of complicating the check, remove it. Failures that happen at this point cause the irqchip not to register, meaning no irqs can be requested. The kernel grinds to a panic() pretty quickly. Without the check, MADT tables that exhibit this problem are still caught by gic_populate_rdist(), which helpfully also prints what went wrong: | CPU4: mpidr 100 has no re-distributor! Signed-off-by: James Morse Reviewed-by: Gavin Shan Tested-by: Miguel Luis Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron Reviewed-by: Marc Zyngier --- drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c | 13 ++----------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c index 6fb276504bcc..10af15f93d4d 100644 --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic-v3.c @@ -2415,19 +2415,10 @@ static int __init gic_acpi_match_gicc(union acpi_subtable_headers *header, * If GICC is enabled and has valid gicr base address, then it means * GICR base is presented via GICC */ - if (acpi_gicc_is_usable(gicc) && gicc->gicr_base_address) { + if (acpi_gicc_is_usable(gicc) && gicc->gicr_base_address) acpi_data.enabled_rdists++; - return 0; - } - /* - * It's perfectly valid firmware can pass disabled GICC entry, driver - * should not treat as errors, skip the entry instead of probe fail. - */ - if (!acpi_gicc_is_usable(gicc)) - return 0; - - return -ENODEV; + return 0; } static int __init gic_acpi_count_gicr_regions(void)