On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:28 PM, Fabien Dessenne <fabien.dessenne@xxxxxx> wrote:
....
> +
> + /* irq */
> + for (i = 0; i < IPCC_IRQ_NUM; i++) {
> + ipcc->irqs[i] = of_irq_get_byname(dev->of_node, irq_name[i]);
> + if (ipcc->irqs[i] < 0) {
> + dev_err(dev, "no IRQ specified %s\n", irq_name[i]);
> + ret = ipcc->irqs[i];
> + goto err_clk;
> + }
> +
> + ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, ipcc->irqs[i], NULL,
> + irq_thread[i], IRQF_ONESHOT,
> + dev_name(dev), ipcc);
>
In your interrupt handlers you don't do anything that could block.
Threads only adds some delay to your message handling.
So maybe use devm_request_irq() ?
.......
> +
> +static struct platform_driver stm32_ipcc_driver = {
> + .driver = {
> + .name = "stm32-ipcc",
> + .owner = THIS_MODULE,
>
No need of owner here these days.
And also maybe use readl/writel, instead of _relaxed.
Cheers!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
