Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] iio: chemical: atlas-sensor: Avoid using irq_work | From | Nicolas Saenz Julienne <> | Date | Thu, 24 Jun 2021 13:13:47 +0200 |
| |
Hi Andy, thanks for the review.
On Thu, 2021-06-24 at 13:39 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 1:01 PM Nicolas Saenz Julienne > <nsaenzju@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > The atlas sensor driver currently registers a threaded IRQ handler whose > > sole responsibility is to trigger an irq_work which will in turn run > > iio_trigger_poll() in IRQ context. > > > > This seems overkill given the fact that there already was a opportunity > > an opportunity
Thanks, noted.
> > @@ -474,7 +465,7 @@ static irqreturn_t atlas_interrupt_handler(int irq, void *private) > > struct iio_dev *indio_dev = private; > > struct atlas_data *data = iio_priv(indio_dev); > > > > - irq_work_queue(&data->work); > > + iio_trigger_poll(data->trig); > > Have you considered dropping atlas_interrupt_trigger_ops() altogether?
Not really, but it makes sense as a separate patch. I'll take care of it.
> > > if (client->irq > 0) { > > /* interrupt pin toggles on new conversion */ > > ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(&client->dev, client->irq, > > > - NULL, atlas_interrupt_handler, > > + atlas_interrupt_handler, NULL, > > So, you move it from threaded IRQ to be a hard IRQ handler (we have a > separate call for this).
Noted.
> Can you guarantee that handling of those events will be fast enough?
Do you mean the events triggered in iio_trigger_poll()? If so the amount of time spent in IRQ context is going to be the same regardless of whether it's handled through atlas' IRQ or later in irq_work IPI (or softirq context on some weird platforms).
-- Nicolás Sáenz
| |