Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] pinctrl: qcom: Add irq_enable callback for msm gpio | From | Neeraj Upadhyay <> | Date | Tue, 25 Jun 2019 15:59:13 +0530 |
| |
On 6/25/19 2:28 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:35 AM Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org> wrote: > >> From: Srinivas Ramana <sramana@codeaurora.org> >> >> Introduce the irq_enable callback which will be same as irq_unmask >> except that it will also clear the status bit before unmask. >> >> This will help in clearing any erroneous interrupts that would >> have got latched when the interrupt is not in use. >> >> There may be devices like UART which can use the same gpio line >> for data rx as well as a wakeup gpio when in suspend. The data that >> was flowing on the line may latch the interrupt and when we enable >> the interrupt before going to suspend, this would trigger the >> unexpected interrupt. This change helps clearing the interrupt >> so that these unexpected interrupts gets cleared. >> >> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Ramana <sramana@codeaurora.org> >> Signed-off-by: Neeraj Upadhyay <neeraju@codeaurora.org> > Overall this looks good to me, waiting for Bjorn's review. > >> Changes since v1: >> - Extracted common code into __msm_gpio_irq_unmask(). > Please don't name functions __like __that. > >> -static void msm_gpio_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *d) >> +static void __msm_gpio_irq_unmask(struct irq_data *d, bool status_clear) > Instead of __unclear __underscore __semantic use something > really descriptive like > > static void msm_gpio_irq_clear_irq() > > That is what it does, right?
Is below ok? as it clears (if status_clear set) and then unmasks irq
static void msm_gpio_irq_clear_unmask()
> > Other than that it looks fine. > > Yours, > Linus Walleij
-- QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
| |