On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 06:26:00PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 05:13:20PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Aleksey Makarov
[off-list ref] wrote:
dev->res is 0 before this one, right? Could you use this fact instead
of address_found flag?

amba_device_alloc() zero-initialises everything.  However, dev->res is
a struct resource, and I'd prefer _this_ method that the OT is using
to testing some random part of struct resource.

So, you mean resource->start = 0 is not enough reliable?

I'd rather not make assumptions about what in a resource is valid
or not valid.

Fair enough.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+               default:
+                       dev_warn(&adev->dev, "Invalid resource\n");

Why? Isn't possible to have other resources for the devices?

AMBA primecell devices have one memory region, and a number of
interrupts.  Other resource types don't make sense.

But isn't warning on the other side too noisy?

Why would it be "too noisy" ?  Isn't it saying that the ACPI is in
error to include more resource types that aren't part of specifying
the AMBA primecell device?  Maybe it should be dev_err(), because
it's technically an error...

Are you expecting people to create ACPI tables with a lot of rubbish
resources attached to these devices?

I'm expecting broken ACPI tables coming from some vendors which is
often the case for some devices.
I would rather leave it as a warning or move to less verbose level.

quoted

Yes, and in this case ret > 0 should be converted to an appropriate
error code, otherwise ACPI core will consider this as a normal
execution, right?

You are assuming that it does return a positive non-zero value in the
first place.

Frankly, I didn't check what that function can return, but I'm sure
that if it will return positive value at some point this will print a
message and tell ACPI that everything okay when it's not.
So, here I suppose to have explicit check for that, or at least (if
you believe that above will never happen) to show that only negative
numbers are possible as error values.

However, I will not insist if Rafael is okay with the original code.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko