On 06.05.2025 18:51, Oleksii Kurochko wrote:
> +static void cf_check aplic_set_irq_type(struct irq_desc *desc, unsigned int
> type)
> +{
> + /*
> + * Interrupt 0 isn't possible based on the spec:
> + * Each of an APLIC’s interrupt sources has a fixed unique identity
> number in the range 1 to N,
> + * where N is the total number of sources at the APLIC. The number zero
> is not a valid interrupt
> + * identity number at an APLIC. The maximum number of interrupt sources
> an APLIC may support
> + * is 1023.
> + *
> + * Thereby interrupt 1 will correspond to bit 0 in sourcecfg[] register,
> + * interrupt 2 ->sourcecfg[1] and so on.
> + *
> + * And that is the reason why we need -1.
> + */
> + unsigned int irq_bit = desc->irq - 1;
> +
> + spin_lock(&aplic.lock);
> +
> + switch(type)
Nit: style
> + {
> + case IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_RISING:
> + writel(APLIC_SOURCECFG_SM_EDGE_RISE,
> &aplic.regs->sourcecfg[irq_bit]);
> + break;
> +
> + case IRQ_TYPE_EDGE_FALLING:
> + writel(APLIC_SOURCECFG_SM_EDGE_FALL,
> &aplic.regs->sourcecfg[irq_bit]);
> + break;
> +
> + case IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH:
> + writel(APLIC_SOURCECFG_SM_LEVEL_HIGH,
> &aplic.regs->sourcecfg[irq_bit]);
> + break;
> +
> + case IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW:
> + writel(APLIC_SOURCECFG_SM_LEVEL_LOW,
> &aplic.regs->sourcecfg[irq_bit]);
> + break;
> +
> + case IRQ_TYPE_NONE:
> + fallthrough;
This is pointless (and hampering readability) when there are no other
statements.
With both taken care of:
Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Jan
