Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 2 Dec 2021 20:43:46 +0800 | Subject | Re: [RESEND PATCH v3 01/10] spmi: pmic-arb: handle spurious interrupt | From | Fenglin Wu <> |
| |
On 2021/12/2 10:39, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > On 02/12/2021 00:00, Fenglin Wu wrote: >> Call handle_bad_irq() for handling spurious interrupt. While at it, >> add an error print in cleanup_irq() for any spurious interrupt which >> is fired but not having interrupt handler registered. > > Being excruciatingly pedantic, I'd suggest breaking this up into two > patches, one for the ratelimit one for the logical change to the irq > handling flow. > The original patch actually only prints a message for any interrupt that's fired but not registered, and it got reviewed and commented to add logic to handle spurious interrupt like this.I might have misunderstood the comments so I combined them together, I agreed theyare not very related and I can separate them and send them again. Thanks. >> Signed-off-by: Abhijeet Dharmapurikar<adharmap@codeaurora.org> >> Signed-off-by: David Collins<collinsd@codeaurora.org> >> Signed-off-by: Fenglin Wu<quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com> >> --- >> drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c | 17 +++++++++++++---- >> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c b/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c >> index bbbd311..da629cc 100644 >> --- a/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c >> +++ b/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c >> @@ -489,6 +489,8 @@ static void cleanup_irq(struct spmi_pmic_arb >> *pmic_arb, u16 apid, int id) >> u8 per = ppid & 0xFF; >> u8 irq_mask = BIT(id); >> + dev_err_ratelimited(&pmic_arb->spmic->dev, "%s apid=%d >> sid=0x%x per=0x%x irq=%d\n", >> + __func__, apid, sid, per, id); >> writel_relaxed(irq_mask, pmic_arb->ver_ops->irq_clear(pmic_arb, >> apid)); >> if (pmic_arb_write_cmd(pmic_arb->spmic, SPMI_CMD_EXT_WRITEL, >> sid, >> @@ -502,10 +504,10 @@ static void cleanup_irq(struct spmi_pmic_arb >> *pmic_arb, u16 apid, int id) >> irq_mask, ppid); >> } >> -static void periph_interrupt(struct spmi_pmic_arb *pmic_arb, u16 >> apid) >> +static int periph_interrupt(struct spmi_pmic_arb *pmic_arb, u16 apid) >> { >> unsigned int irq; >> - u32 status, id; >> + u32 status, id, handled = 0; > > If handled were an int > >> u8 sid = (pmic_arb->apid_data[apid].ppid >> 8) & 0xF; >> u8 per = pmic_arb->apid_data[apid].ppid & 0xFF; >> @@ -520,7 +522,10 @@ static void periph_interrupt(struct >> spmi_pmic_arb *pmic_arb, u16 apid) >> continue; >> } >> generic_handle_irq(irq); >> + handled++; >> } >> + >> + return (handled) ? 0 : -EINVAL; >> } > > you could "return handled;" and then have > > if (periph_interrupt(pmic_arb, apid)) > handled++; > > later on > > Its not important I suppose but please do at least break this up into > two separate patches. > Got it, will update it. Thanks > --- > bod
| |